PRASAD, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (referred to hereinafter as the Tribunal') dated 27. 9. 1999.
(2.) THE respondent No. 1 was one of the incumbents for being enrolled as a Jeep Driver before the petitioner authorities. He filled in a form Annex. A/1. In the form there was a column which said that have you ever been prosecuted. This was to be answered in `yes' or `no'. THE respondent No. 1 answered this column in `no'. THE case of the petitioners is that the respondent No. 1 had been prosecuted, held guilty and then granted benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. THEse facts have not been controverted by the respondent No. 1. THE case of the petitioners is that in the application form warnings were appended on the top. THEse read as under:- "warnings: 1) THE furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form would be disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government. 2) If detained, convicted, debarred etc. subsequent to the completion and submission of this Form, the details should be communicated immediately to the Union Public Service Commission or the Authority to whom the Attestation Form has been sent earlier, and the case may be, failing which it will be deemed to be a suppression of factual information. 3) If the fact that false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of any factual information in the attestation form comes to notice at any time during the service of a person, his services would be liable to be terminated. " In terms of these warnings it is clear that case of furnishing of a false information or suppression of factual information in the attestation form will result into disqualification. The case of the petitioners is that in the process of selection the name of the respondent No. 1 was not considered for the post of Jeep Driver and the original application was moved before the Tribunal to consider the case of the respondent applicant and appoint him on the post of Driver. The Tribunal after considering the case of the respondent applicant and following a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Khalid Ahmed (1), decided on 18. 5. 1998 has held that the appellant at the time of filling up the form could be under the impression that he has not been punished. Therefore the concealment was unintentional. The Tribunal further held that the respondent No. 1 was not involved in any offence involving moral turpitude. In the final analysis the Tribunal held that in our opinion, the so-called concealment of information should not come in the way of the respondents in offering him appointment. Consequently, the Tribunal has given a direction that appointment be offered to the respondent No. 1 on the post of Jeep Driver. Counsel for the petitioners challenging the finding of the Tribunal has urged that the Tribunal was not correct when it has followed the decision of this Court rendered in Khalid Ahmed (supra ). In fact, the Rajasthan High Court in a Full Bench decision in Dharam Pal Singh & 4 Others vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others (2), has held that duty to speak the truth is made mandatory by necessity of creating and maintaining the human relationship and bonds of unity and fraternity and the respondent No. 1 was duty bound to say the truth. In the instant case, the warnings given at the top of the form are clear enough that in case suppression of any factual information can result in refusal of offering of appointment and since the respondent No. 1 has withheld the information on a material point he was not entitled to be appointed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the Full Bench of this Court has relied upon a Supreme Court decision rendered in Delhi Administration vs. Sushil Kumar (3), and has laid stress on the finding of the Supreme Court: "the criminal offences, the same has nothing to do with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. " In this back-ground, it has been emphasised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the findings of the learned Members of the Tribunal were not justifiable. This Court in a Division Bench decision in the case of Madan Lal Jat vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (4), has held as under:- "it is thus, clearly seen that the petitioner has concealed the material facts that two cases were pending/registered against him. Under such circumstances, the respondents in our opinion, have full liberty not to appoint him in the services of the department. This apart no legal right has come to be vested for giving appointment to the post of constable because admittedly, the petitioner has concealed the material facts from the appointing authority while submitting his application form and also while submitting his Verification Roll. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. " Learned counsel has thus prayed that the order of the Tribunal be set aside and the writ petition filed by the petitioners be allowed and it may be held that the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to appointment. ;