Read Time: 06 minutes

The Top Court last week upheld the order of removal of a trained graduate teacher who lied on an attestation form given for verification of antecedents on two accounts.

"The respondent is responsible for shaping career of young students. What kind of message he will be giving to the students by his conduct based on untruthfulness?", remarked the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramaniam.

The bench was further of a view that an employee desirous of holding a civil post has to act with utmost good faith and truthfulness. Truthfulness cannot be made causality by an aspirant much more for a candidate aspiring to be a teacher, the bench said.

One Bheem Singh Meena joined as a trained graduate teacher of Mathematics after passing the test conducted by Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board in 1999.

After joining, he was given an attestation form wherein he had answered the question ‘have you ever been prosecuted’ in the negative. He again filled up the antecedent form in 2005 where he again denied that he was ever prosecuted.

Thereafter, during verification, it was found that a case under Section 499/93, 147, 332, 353, 427 & and 149 IPC was registered against Meena and a charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Karauli, Rajasthan in 1994.

Meena was then served with a charge memo in 2006 calling upon him to explain why he had concealed the fact regarding the case registered against him and of the charge-sheet. In his reply, Meena stated that he forgot about the incident after acquittal and the column was filled up by oversight and that he was residing in Delhi since July 1996 and had no idea about the status of the case after 1996.

Following the same, an order of removal was accordingly issued. The Central Administrative tribunal denied a challenge to the said order but the High Court allowed the same.

"The whole idea of verification of character and antecedents is that the person suitable for the post in question is appointed. It is one of the important criteria which is necessary to be fulfilled before appointment is made. An incumbent should not have antecedents of such a nature which may adjudge him unsuitable for the post....", noted the top court while deciding the appeal filed against High Court's order.

Meena contended before the top court that his education was in Hindi and therefore, he could not understand the meaning of the word prosecution, therefore, the bonafide error in giving the wrong answer should have been ignored as has been done by the High Court.

To this, Court said that while seeking an appointment to the post of trained graduate teacher, Meena was not an illiterate or uneducated person who can claim ignorance of the meaning of the word ‘prosecution’. With this view, the appeal came to be allowed with Court upholding order of removal.

Case Title: Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. v. Bheem Singh Meena