The Supreme Court recently refused relief to a candidate of Police Constable post and approved his rejection for suppressing the pendency of a criminal case against him.
The Division Bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna observed that it is not about whether the offences is trivial in nature or not, it is about suppression of material fact.
The State Government of Rajasthan has appealed against the Rajasthan High Court judgement via which it had been directed to accept the candidature of the respondent-faulty candidate.
Senior Counsel for the State submitted that despite Column 15 of the Job Application Form of the original writ petitioner by which he was required to state true and correct facts of criminal antecedents and despite the fact that he was facing criminal prosecution, the original writ petitioner suppressed the same and did not disclose the same. On the contrary in the column of “whether any criminal case has been registered against the applicant?” he said “No”. He contended that when the candidate at the initial stage itself did not state the true and correct facts and as such suppressed the material facts, he is not entitled to be appointed on the post as Constable.
He further averred that the post of Constable whose duty is to maintain law and order, first of all should be honest and therefore a candidate who, at the initial stage and before even getting the appointment as a constable has suppressed the material facts of having criminal antecedents and he has made a false statement in the application form. How can he 8 be trusted and be appointed as a Constable?
Justifying State's rejection of him, he cited Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors., 2017 Latest Caselaw 810 SC, Daya Shankar Yadav Vs.Union of India & Ors, 2010 Latest Caselaw 886 SC,
The Senior Counsel also informed the Court that the writ petitioner faced 3 to 4 more FIRs, out of which, in two cases he was acquitted by entering into a compromise and in one case he has been convicted, however has been given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act and that one criminal case is still pending against him.
The Court at the outset noted that the duty of the constable is to maintain law and order and therefore it is expected that he should be honest, trustworthy and that his 10 integrity is above board and that he is reliable.
"An employee in the uniformed service presupposes a higher level of integrity as such a person is expected to uphold the law and on the contrary any act in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated."
Noting that writ petitioner has not confirmed to the above expectations/ requirements and suppressed the material facts of his criminal antecedents, the Court ruled that the ground that his offences were trivial in nature and the suppression of such offences should have been ignored can't sustain.
""The question is not whether the offences were trivial in nature or not. The question is one of suppression of material fact by the original writ petitioner in respect of his criminal antecedents and making a false statement in the application form. If in the beginning itself, he has suppressed the material fact in respect to his criminal antecedents and in fact made an incorrect statement, how can he be appointed as a constable. How can he be trusted thereafter in future? How it is expected that thereafter he will perform his duty honestly and with integrity?"
The appeal was accordingly allowed and the impugned order was set aside.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs Chetan Jeff
Case Details: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3116 OF 2022
Coram: Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Delhi_Police_Officers.JPG
