Page No.# 1/23 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 8633 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/23 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 18 November, 2025

                                                                  Page No.# 1/23

GAHC010170102024




                                                             2025:GAU-AS:15607

                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                        Case No. : WP(C)/4532/2024

         MANASH PRATIM HAZARIKA
         S/O- LATE RAJAT HAZARIKA, R/O- VILL.- RAIDONGIA, DHING ROAD, P.O.
         AIBHETI, P.S. JAJORI, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782002, ASSAM


         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
         GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
         GUWAHATI-06.

         2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (COMMN)
         ASSAM
          ULUBARI
          GUWAHATI-07.

         3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (COMMN)
         ASSAM
          ULUBARI
          GUWAHATI-07.

         4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
          (COMMN)
         ASSAM
          ULUBARI
          GUWAHATI-07.

         5:THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (COMMN)

          HQ-II
          ULUBARI
          GUWAHATI-7
                                                                              Page No.# 2/23

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. J KALITA, MR SOHAING

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MS. M BHATTACHARJEE ADDL. SR. GA, ASSAM

:::BEFORE:::

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A

Date of pronouncement of judgment : 18.11.2025

Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment : No

Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced : Yes

Judgment & Order (Oral)

Heard Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. And also heard Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, for State respondents.

2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the order dated 09.02.2024, passed by the Superintendent of Police (Commn) Assam, by which the petitioner has been terminated from service as Constable (WO/WT) of the Assam Police Radio Organization (hereinafter referred to as APRO in short) with immediate effect and order dated 02.07.2024, passed by Inspector General of Police (Commn), Assam, Ulubari, Guwahati, whereby the appeal of the petitioner is rejected.

3. Brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as Constable (WO/WT) in the APRO, Assam, along with 339 others, on the recommendation of the State Level Page No.# 3/23

Recruitment Board vide order dated 24.05.2023. Petitioner joined his service on 01.06.2023 and completed his basic Drill and Discipline training and was posted at APRO, HQ, Ulubari and was on probation. The appointment order dated 24.05.2023 contains terms and conditions, inter alia, that the appointees who submitted notarised affidavit swearing that he/she is not involved in any criminal or unlawful activities in the eye of law, appropriate steps will be taken in case of misrepresentation of facts found by the authority. The appointee shall submit notarised affidavit regarding character and antecedent and undertaking that the appointment shall be subject to satisfactory verification of documents and undertaking submitted by the appointees.

4. While the petitioner was serving at the APRO Headquarter, at Ulubari, the Superintendent of Police (Commn) HQ-II, vide letter dated 29.01.2024, issued a show cause to the petitioner to explain as to why he had concealed the fact of involvement in criminal case, while joining the government service and should not be discharged from service for violating Clause-5 of the appointment letter. Clause-5 of the appointment letter requires that the appointee furnish a signed undertaking or affidavit, thereby declaring that they have voluntarily and without duress agreed to the terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment order.

5. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his written explanation dated 03.02.2024, whereby the petitioner has admitted that he has submitted a notarized affidavit by mentioning that he is not involved in any criminal case. Explaining the involvement in the Jajori PS Case No. 60 of 2018, under Sections 427/294/325/34 IPC, the petitioner stated that the said case has arisen out of family feud between his late father and his elder brother regarding the ancestral residential plot, wherein the paternal uncle and his wife lodged the FIR with a totally false and concocted story and as the incident arises out of family feud without involving any other person or public, he presumed that same is not a criminal case. Therefore, he was not involved in criminal or unlawful activities in the eye of law, more so, he has not been convicted of any offence and there is nothing Page No.# 4/23

adverse in his character and antecedent. The petitioner further explained that the case was out of purely family feud and mainly lodged against his father wherein the petitioner was too young and the allegation was false thereby paid less attention towards the case and was under presumption that it would not affect his service.

6. After consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police (Commn) Assam, vide order dated 09.02.2024, terminated the service of the petitioner as Constable (WO/WT) of APRO with immediate effect, on the ground that the petitioner has admitted that he was accused in the Jajori PS Case No. 60 of 2018, submitted a false affidavit which has come to the notice of the authority during the probation period his involvement in the criminal case. It further provides that the appointment of recruit Constable (WO/WT) on probation is purely probational and may be terminated by APRO authority at any time, without assigning any reasons whenever considered necessary, in terms of the appointment order.

7. On appeal by the petitioner with an apology of not mentioning the said criminal case against the petitioner, vide order dated 02.07.2024, the Inspector General of Police (Commn) Assam, dismissed the said appeal, on the ground that it is established that there was a criminal case and charge-sheeted against the petitioner and he submitted false affidavit to that effect, at the time of joining his service, and, therefore, he has violated the terms and conditions of appointment. Hence, this writ petition.

8. Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had admitted that he has submitted an affidavit to the effect that he has no criminal case pending against him as he was never involved in any criminal activities in his life presuming that since the FIR lodged against him and his family was because of a family feud regarding the ancestral property, which is completely civil in nature, would not be treated as criminal case. The FIR was lodged by the paternal uncle and his wife falsely implicating the family members of the petitioner with an intention to grab their ancestral property. The petitioner has also tendered his unconditional apology for such Page No.# 5/23

unintentional mistake committed by him.

9. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel submits that the petitioner was never involved in a any criminal activities, however, because of the family feud, the paternal uncle had lodged an FIR against the family members including the petitioner, which is purely civil dispute, therefore, cannot be ground for termination of service, that too, when the petitioner has honestly admitted his unintentional mistake, on having been under bona fide presumption that the said Jajori PS Case is civil in nature. He submits that the said case was registered only under Sections 427/294/325/34 IPC, which is not relating to moral turpitude, rather was the outcome of family feud pertaining to their ancestral property, which shall not have any impact over the affairs of the respondent authorities. While referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Mr. Kalita submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court, time and again, has held that mere submission of a false statement that there is no criminal case pending against a candidate, does not automatically disentitle a candidate from the right to get a job. He submits that, by now, the learned trial Court has honourably acquitted the petitioner by the order dated 16.02.2024, from the said case.

10. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel further submits that since no proceeding is preceded, the termination order against the petitioner is not sustainable, as even for a probationer, minimum proceedings have to be followed as the reason for termination is based on misconduct and not on suitability of the probationer. Therefore, the termination is bad in law.

11. In support of his submissions, Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments:

(i). Tabong Pasar -Vs- State of Arunachal Pradesh; reported in 1999 (3) GLT 90;

(ii). Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan -Vs- Mehbub Alam Laskar; reported in (2008) 2 SCC 479;

Page No.# 6/23

(iii). Commissioner of Police and Others -Vs- Sandeep Kumar; reported in (2011) 4 SCC 644; Para - 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

(iv). Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary -Vs- Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar; reported in (2015) 15 SCC 151;

(v). Ravindra Kumar -vs State of UP and Others; (2024) 5 SCC 264;

12. Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents, submits that after being selected and recommended for appointment by the State Level Police Recruitment Board, Assam, the petitioner was appointed as Constable (WO/WT/OPR) in APRO subject to fulfillment of the certain laid down terms and conditions of appointment. As per the terms and conditions, the petitioner at the time of his joining in service on 01.06.2023, submitted a notarized affidavit dated 29.05.2023 in the prescribed format swearing, inter alia, that there was no pending criminal case against him and nothing in his character and antecedents which render him unsuitable to retain in the post he joined. But, in the report of verification of character and antecedents, received vide dated 08.01.2024 of the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon, Assam, it is revealed that a case had been registered against him at Jajori PS, Nagaon vide Jajori P.S. case No.60/2018 dated 24.04.2018 under Sections 427/294/325/34 IPC which was charge sheeted on 31.05.2018 and then was under trial. The report of Superintendent of Police, Nagaon reveals that there was a criminal case pending against the petitioner at the time of his joining in service, but, he submitted affidavit to the effect that there was no criminal case pending against him. The petitioner has concealed an established fact and thus, he not only violated the terms and conditions of his appointment, but also exhibited indiscipline, unbecoming conduct and doubtful integrity which rendered him unfit for retention in the police force.

13. She submits that the petitioner was asked to submit his written explanation as to why he concealed the fact of his involvement in the criminal case and why he would not be terminated from his service for violating the terms and conditions of his appointment, vide this office memo dated 29.01.2024. The petitioner submitted his reply on Page No.# 7/23

03.02.2024, wherein he stated that he paid less attention towards the case and was in general presumption that it will not affect his service, which clearly indicates his admission that he had submitted affidavit of false declaration, thereby misled the appointing authority and thus found not satisfactory. The petitioner was on probation and therefore terminated as per the terms and conditions laid down in the appointment order.

14. Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate further submits that after termination, the petitioner filed appeal praying for reinstatement in service clearly admitting submission of false affidavit and on the ground of acquittal from the said criminal case. The competent authority after careful consideration rejected the appeal on having been found guilty of concealing the established fact of his involvement in criminal case by submitting false affidavit. She submits that since the petitioner has admitted the fact of submitting false affidavit no any other proceeding is required, moreso, he was on probation for 2 (two) years.

15. Ms Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate has relied upon the decisions rendered in the cases of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & Another vs Mehar Singh; reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685 and Union Territory, Chandigarh -vs- Pradeep Kumar and Another; reported in (2018) 1 SCC 797 to project that acquittal in the criminal case does not confer an indefeasible right to the petitioner to automatic reinstatement in service.

16. Due consideration has been extended to the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the materials on record.

17. The petitioner was appointed as Constable (WO/WT) in the APRO, Assam, along with 339 others, on the recommendation of the State Level Recruitment Board vide order dated 24.05.2023 and was on probation for 2 (two) years. The appointment order dated 24.05.2023 contains terms and conditions, which is extracted herein under:

"The following are the Terms and Conditions of service for the appointee:

1. During his/her service period, he/she may be deputed or his/her services may be placed Page No.# 8/23

on attachment or on secondment basis within the Assam Police and its Organisations or to any other Department/sub-ordinate office/Public sector undertaking/Society / Mission under the State Govt within and outside the State having the same Pay Scale and Grade pay for a period decided and specified by the State Govt.

While on such Deputation or on attachment or placed on Secondment basis he/she shall continue to be guided by the Assam Civil Services(Conduct) Rules, 1965 and Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 as well as The Assam Police Act, 2007, Assam Police Manual and Rules related to both the Act and the Manual.

2. The services of any selected candidate found to have furnished false/ falsified information regarding educational qualification/caste/gender/ EWS status etc. in his/her application and detected subsequently, will be terminated and legal action will also be taken as per law.

3. Any selected candidate for Class IV Post found to be overqualified/found to have suppressed information about over educational qualification, in terms of the advertisement during entry in the service, his/her service will be terminated and also legal action will be taken as per norms.

4. If a Candidate or any of his/her family members is availing benefits under the Orunodoi Scheme at the time of the appointment, he/she or the concerned family, member shall voluntarily opt out of the Scheme, as per Orunodoi Guidelines for getting appointment to the post.

5. The appointee shall also have to furnish a signed undertaking/ affidavit at the time of joining as-"I,....................(Name), appointed .......(Designation) in..............Department of Government of Assam do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that, I voluntarily and without duress agree to the terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment order. I also solemnly affirm and declare that I satisfy all the qualifying criteria of the post to which I am appointed to. I also declare that I do not have more than one wife living (applicable for male candidates)/have married a person who has wife living (applicable for female candidates). I also further declare that I do not have more than two living children on or after 01-01-2021 from a single or multiple partners. In case of any detection to the contrary in due course, I shall be summarily discharged from the Service."

6. Further, the appointee shall also have to submit a Notarized Affidavit as per provisions of the Personnel(B) Department O.M. No. ABP.78/2021/01, dated 18/11/2021. Format of the affidavit is enclosed in Annexure-I. The candidate(s) is/ are to report at the O/O The Special Director General of Police (Communication), Assam, APRO HQ, Ulubari, Guwahati on 01-06-2023 with all relevant documents.

On completion of necessary formalities for joining in the Service they will have to report at their respective Police Training Institution (as earmarked) to undergo Police Basic Drill & Discipline Training.

7. Further, he/she will have to bring the items as given hereunder:-

a. Date of Birth Certificate, Caste Certificate, and Educational Qualification Certificate in original b. Discharge Certificate/Order in original if he/she an employee of other office/unit. c. 2 (Two) copies of self attested passport size photographs.

Page No.# 9/23

d. Xerox copies of the front page of Bank Passbook with Bank Account Number along with your PAN Card.

e. He/she come prepared with necessary bedding and money to meet his/her expenditure (for messing, clothing, personal expenditure etc) for the initial period till receipt of his/her pay/salary.

f. He/she will have to submit undertaking before the undersigned in format as prescribed by the Finance Budget Department vide letter number BW.3/Pt-II/I dtd. 25-01-2005 regarding acceptance of "New Pension Scheme".

g. The appointing authority will have the right to cancel the appointment of the candidate in case he/she has been selected and appointed on the basis of any fraudulent documents and is detected by the authority in future.

h. In addition to the above, his / her seniority and all Service conditions will be governed by "The Assam Police Wireless Communications Service Rules, 2021", read with Rules "Assam Police Manual" and "Assam Police Act" etc having relevance thereof. i. If he/she fail to report for joining within the specified date, his / her selection will be treated as cancelled.

8. After completion of all the official formalities, a candidate will have to undergo Basic Drill & Discipline Training for a period of 20 (twenty) weeks duration with the following conditions:

a. He/ She will have to pass the Police Basic Drill & Discipline Training within 3(three) chances failing which he/she will be discharged/dismissed from the service without assigning any notice/reason thereof.

b. After completion and coming out successful in the Police Basic Drill & Discipline Training, he/she will have to undergo 3 (three) Weeks Basic Radio Communication Course followed by 12(twelve) Weeks PWCC Level-III Course at APRO Training School, Jalukbari, Guwahati -781013 or any other institutions in the country as decided by competent authority of APRO he/she will also have to pass the course in 3 (three) chances failing which he/she will be discharged/dismissed from service immediately without assigning any further notice/reason thereof.

c. All the terms and conditions as laid down in the Advertisement for the post of Constable of Police (WO/WT), shall be applicable in respect of Constable of Police (WO/WT) in their service career in APRO.

d. A recruit Constable of Police (WO/WT) will be on probation for a period of 2(two) years and shall be liable to be discharged/dismissed/terminated for gross unbecoming conduct, indiscipline, remissness to duties etc or otherwise found to be unsatisfactory in performance and conduct during the said period."

18. Perusal of the above terms and conditions of appointment shows, inter alia, that the appointee is required to submit notarised affidavit regarding character and antecedent and undertaking that the appointment shall be subject to satisfactory verification of documents and undertaking submitted by the appointees. The appointees who submitted Page No.# 10/23

notarised affidavit swearing that he/she is not involved in any criminal or unlawful activities in the eye of law, appropriate steps will be taken in case of misrepresentation of facts found by the authority. It also reflects that the appointee has to furnish a signed undertaking/affidavit, thereby declaring that voluntarily and without duress agreed to the terms and conditions of the appointment order.

19. The respondent authority having received report on verification that the petitioner was involved in criminal case through the Superintendent of Police (Commn) HQ-II, vide letter dated 29.01.2024, issued a show cause to the petitioner to explain as to why he had concealed the fact of involvement in criminal case, while joining the government service and should not be discharged from service for violating Clause-5 of the appointment letter. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his written explanation dated 03.02.2024, whereby the petitioner has admitted that he has submitted a notarized affidavit by mentioning that he is not involved in any criminal case. Explaining the involvement in the Jajori PS Case No. 60 of 2018, under Sections 427/294/325/34 IPC, the petitioner had stated that the said case has arisen out of family feud between his late father and paternal uncle regarding the ancestral residential plot, wherein the paternal uncle and his wife lodged the FIR with a totally false and concocted story and as the incident arises out of family feud without involving any other person or public, he presumed that same was not a criminal case. Therefore, he was not involved in criminal or unlawful activities in the eye of law, more so, he has not been convicted of any offence and there is nothing adverse in his character and antecedent. The petitioner further explained that the case was out of purely family feud and mainly lodged against his father wherein the petitioner was too young and the allegation was false, thereby, paid less attention towards the case and was under presumption that it would not affect his service.

20. After consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police (Commn) Assam, vide order dated 09.02.2024, terminated the Page No.# 11/23

service of the petitioner as Constable (WO/WT/OPR) in APRO with immediate effect, on the ground that the petitioner has admitted that he was accused in the Jajori PS Case No. 60 of 2018, submitted a false affidavit which has come to the notice of the authority during the probation period regarding his involvement in the criminal case. It further provides that the appointment of recruit Constable (WO/WT/OPR) is purely probational and may be terminated by APRO authority at any time, without assigning any reasons whenever considered necessary, in terms of the appointment order.

21. On appeal by the petitioner with an apology of not mentioning the said criminal case against the petitioner and after acquittal, vide order dated 02.07.2024, the Inspector General of Police (Commn) Assam, rejected the said appeal, on the ground that it is established that there was a criminal case and in which he was charge-sheeted against the petitioner and he submitted false affidavit to that effect at the time of joining his service, and, therefore, he has violated the terms and conditions of appointment.

22. Upon due consideration, it is seen that the selection and appointment of petitioner as Constable (WO/WT/OPR) is subject to fulfillment of the terms and conditions of appointment order. As per the terms and conditions, the petitioner submitted a notarized affidavit dated 29.05.2023 in the prescribed format swearing, inter alia, that there was no pending criminal case against him and nothing in his character and antecedents which render him unsuitable to retain in the post he joined. However, in the report of verification of character and antecedents dated 08.01.2024 of the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon, it revealed that a case was registered against him being Jajori PS case No.60/2018 on 24.04.2018 under Sections 427/294/325/34 IPC which was charge-

sheeted on 31.05.2018. Therefore, there was a criminal case pending against the petitioner at the time of his joining in service, but, he submitted affidavit to the effect that there was no criminal case pending against him which is in violation of the terms and conditions of his appointment, which in my considered view, appears to be termination simpliciter.

Page No.# 12/23

23. The petitioner was provided with an opportunity to submit his written explanation as to why he concealed the fact of his involvement in the criminal case and why he should not be terminated from his service for violating the terms and conditions of his appointment, vide dated 29.01.2024. The petitioner submitted his reply on 03.02.2024, wherein he had stated that he paid less attention towards the case and was under bona fide presumption that it will not affect his service, which clearly indicates his admission that he had submitted affidavit of false declaration. Thus, in my considered view, the petitioner has submitted a false affidavit which would, ordinarily, entail his termination from service in terms of the terms and conditions of the appointment order as he has misrepresented the authority. The presumption, no matter bona fide may be, of treating the criminal case as civil just because same may have arisen out of family feud is hard to believe and unacceptable. Nevertheless, fact remains that there was a criminal case pending against the petitioner at the time of his appointment and same has been admittedly concealed.

24. The petitioner was on probation for 2 (two) years and was terminated as per the terms and conditions laid in the appointment order on having been found involved in a criminal case which he has suppressed by submitting affidavit that he is not involved in any criminal case. Thus, ordinarily, the termination of the petitioner from the service cannot be held to be bad in law in view of the fact that the petitioner has violated the terms of the appointment order which he has accepted at the time of his appointment. However, the respondent authority has mentioned that the petitioner has violated the terms of the appointment which amounts to misconduct and not on unsuitability which may not be ground for termination of a probationer. It is true that even for probationer if the termination is on the ground of misconduct, same shall be preceded by appropriate proceedings by providing opportunity of hearing to the appointee.

25. Now, this court would refer and consider the relevant case laws relied on by the parties.

Page No.# 13/23

26. In the case of Tabong Pasar (Supra), this Court has held that in a case where the performance of a probationer is found to be not satisfactory during the period of probation, his services are liable to be dispensed with, without any legal obligation to provide him any opportunity of hearing. But in case the order terminating the services of a probationer is not based on his unsatisfactory performance during the period of probation, but on an alleged act of misconduct which has direct nexus with the action taken by the authorities, it would be punitive in nature which will require opportunity of hearing before passing of the order. In that case the order of termination was based on the allegation that the petitioner deliberately suppressed the vital fact that a criminal case was pending against him and thus entered into the service. Had this fact been disclosed, the petitioner would not have been entitled for the appointment at all. The court found that the order of termination is not founded on unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner during the period of probation but is founded on alleged misconduct of having deliberately suppressed vital information while entering into service. At no stage of the case the respondents have made any reference of the performance of the petitioner as a probationer. Only the charge of deliberate suppression of vital fact is pressed into service to justify the order of termination, which was held to be an imputation of misconduct and any order founded on such charge could only be passed by affording an opportunity of hearing. If such an opportunity had been provided to the petitioner, he could have explained the position as to whether at the time the information was required to be given the fact was within his knowledge or not. It has also found that it is not there on the record as to what was the information which was sought to be disclosed by a candidate while filling in form as the said form has been placed on record. There may be various possibilities of explaining the conduct, it may or may not find favour with the authorities is a different matter, but that opportunity cannot be dispensed with. After the enquiry the respondents could exonerate the Appellant or otherwise terminate his services or cancel the order of appointment depending upon the result of the enquiry.

Page No.# 14/23

27. In the case of Ravindra Kumar (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"...The law on this issue is settled by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh (Supra). Paras 34, 35, 36 & 38, which sets out the conclusions, are extracted herein below:--

"34. No doubt about it that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess suitability and it is open to employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects.

35. Suppression of "material" information presupposes that what is suppressed that "matters" not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases.

36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects.

38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:

38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.

38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted:

38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such Page No.# 15/23

as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.

38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.

38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.

38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.

38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.

38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.

38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.

38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.

38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."

(Emphasis supplied)

24. More recently in Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 532, involving appointment to the post of Constable in Railway Protection Force and Page No.# 16/23

setting aside the order of discharge due to alleged suppression in the verification form, this Court, after noticing Avtar Singh (Supra) held as under:--

"11. This cannot be disputed that the candidate who intends to participate in the selection process is always required to furnish correct information relating to his character and antecedents in the verification/attestation form before and after induction into service. It is also equally true that the person who has suppressed the material information or has made false declaration indeed has no unfettered right of seeking appointment or continuity in service, but at least has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to be judiciously exercised by the competent authority in a reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts of the case on hand. It goes without saying that the yardstick/standard which has to be applied with regard to adjudging suitability of the incumbent always depends upon the nature of post, nature of duties, effect of suppression over suitability to be considered by the authority on due diligence of various aspects but no hard and fast rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard.

13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What being noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service.

19. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 17 th November, 2015 and the order of discharge dated 24th April, 2015 and dated 23rd December, 2021 are hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant in service on the post of Constable on which he was selected pursuant to his participation in reference to employment notice no. 1/2011 dated 27 th February, 2011. We make it clear that the appellant will not be entitled for the arrears of salary for the period during which he has not served the force and at the same time he will be entitled for all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits, etc. Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of one month from today. No costs."

28. In the case of Meher Singh (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"35. The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the society. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged in the criminal case, that acquittal or Page No.# 17/23

discharge order will have to be examined to see whether he has been completely exonerated in the case because even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In recent times, the image of the police force is tarnished. Instances of police personnel behaving in a wayward manner by misusing power are in public domain and are a matter of concern. The reputation of the police force has taken a beating. In such a situation, we would not like to dilute the importance and efficacy of a mechanism like the Screening Committee created by the Delhi Police to ensure that persons who are likely to erode its credibility do not enter the police force. At the same time, the Screening Committee must be alive to the importance of trust reposed in it and must treat all candidates with even hand."

29. In Pradeep Kumar (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"10. The acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive of the suitability of the candidates in the concerned post. If a person is acquitted or discharged, it cannot always be inferred that he was falsely involved or he had no criminal antecedents. Unless it is an honourable acquittal, the candidate cannot claim the benefit of the case. What is honourable acquittal, was considered by this Court in Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another v. S. Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598, in which this Court held as under:-

"24. The meaning of the expression "honourable acquittal" came up for consideration before this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal (1994) 1 SCC

541. In that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The expressions "honourable acquittal", "acquitted of blame", "fully exonerated" are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression "honourably acquitted". When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted."

11. Entering into the police service required a candidate to be of good character, integrity and clean antecedents. In Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another v. Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685, the respondent was acquitted based on the compromise. This Court held that even though acquittal was based on compromise, it is still open to the Screening Committee to examine the suitability of the candidate and take a decision. Emphasizing upon the importance of character and integrity required for joining police force/discipline force, in Mehar Singh case, this Court held as under:-

"23. A careful perusal of the policy leads us to conclude that the Screening Committee would be entitled to keep persons involved in grave cases Page No.# 18/23

of moral turpitude out of the police force even if they are acquitted or discharged if it feels that the acquittal or discharge is on technical grounds or not honourable. The Screening Committee will be within its rights to cancel the candidature of a candidate if it finds that the acquittal is based on some serious flaw in the conduct of the prosecution case or is the result of material witnesses turning hostile. It is only experienced officers of the Screening Committee who will be able to judge whether the acquitted or discharged candidate is likely to revert to similar activities in future with more strength and vigour, if appointed, to the post in a police force. The Screening Committee will have to consider the nature and extent of such person's involvement in the crime and his propensity of becoming a cause for worsening the law and order situation rather than maintaining it. In our opinion, this policy framed by the Delhi Police does not merit any interference from this Court as its object appears to be to ensure that only persons with impeccable character enter the police force.

24. We find no substance in the contention that by cancelling the respondents' candidature, the Screening Committee has overreached the judgments of the criminal court. We are aware that the question of co-relation between a criminal case and a departmental enquiry does not directly arise here, but, support can be drawn from the principles laid down by this Court in connection with it because the issue involved is somewhat identical, namely, whether to allow a person with doubtful integrity to work in the department. While the standard of proof in a criminal case is the proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the proof in a departmental proceeding is preponderance of probabilities. Quite often criminal cases end in acquittal because witnesses turn hostile. Such acquittals are not acquittals on merit. An acquittal based on benefit of doubt would not stand on a par with a clean acquittal on merit after a full-fledged trial, where there is no indication of the witnesses being won over. In R.P. Kapur v. Union of India AIR 1964 SC 787 this Court has taken a view that departmental proceedings can proceed even though a person is acquitted when the acquittal is other than honourable.

25. The expression "honourable acquittal" was considered by this Court in S. Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598. In that case this Court was concerned with a situation where disciplinary proceedings were initiated against a police officer. Criminal case was pending against him under Section 509 IPC and under Section 4 of the Eve-Teasing Act. He was acquitted in that case because of the non-examination of key witnesses. There was a serious flaw in the conduct of the criminal case. Two material witnesses turned hostile. Referring to the judgment of this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal (1994) 1 SCC 541, where in somewhat similar fact situation, this Court upheld a bank's action of refusing to reinstate an employee in service on the ground that in the criminal case he was acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt and, therefore, it was not an honourable acquittal, this Court held that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the punishment imposed in the departmental proceedings. This Court observed that the expressions "honourable acquittal", "acquitted of blame" and "fully exonerated" are unknown to the Criminal Procedure Code or Page No.# 19/23

the Penal Code. They are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define what is meant by the expression "honourably acquitted". This Court expressed that when the accused is acquitted after full consideration of the prosecution case and the prosecution miserably fails to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.

**** **** ****

35. The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the society. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged in the criminal case, that acquittal or discharge order will have to be examined to see whether he has been completely exonerated in the case because even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In recent times, the image of the police force is tarnished. Instances of police personnel behaving in a wayward manner by misusing power are in public domain and are a matter of concern. The reputation of the police force has taken a beating. In such a situation, we would not like to dilute the importance and efficacy of a mechanism like the Screening Committee created by the Delhi Police to ensure that persons who are likely to erode its credibility do not enter the police force. At the same time, the Screening Committee must be alive to the importance of the trust reposed in it and must treat all candidates with an even hand.

**** **** ****

17. In a catena of judgments, the importance of integrity and high standard of conduct in police force has been emphasized. As held in Mehar Singh case, the decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In the case in hand, there is nothing to suggest that the decision of the Screening Committee is mala fide. The decision of the Screening Committee that the respondents are not suitable for being appointed to the post of Constable does not call for interference. The Tribunal and the High Court, in our view, erred in setting aside the decision of the Screening Committee and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside."

30. Perusal of the above case laws show that it is well settled that no doubt that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess suitability and it is open to employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all Page No.# 20/23

relevant aspects. Suppression of "material" information presupposes that what is suppressed that "matters" not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarised as under:

"...1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.

3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted:

5. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.

6. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.

7. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the Page No.# 21/23

employee.

8. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

9. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.

10. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.

11. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.

12. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.

13. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.

14. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."

15. There cannot be disputed that the candidate who intends to participate in the selection process is always required to furnish correct information relating to his character and antecedents in the verification/attestation form before and after induction into service.

It is also equally true that the person who has suppressed the material information or has made false declaration indeed has no unfettered right of seeking appointment or continuity in service, but at least has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to be judiciously exercised by the competent authority in a reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts of the case on hand. It goes without saying that the yardstick/standard which has to be applied with regard to adjudging suitability of the incumbent always depends upon the nature of post, nature of duties, effect of suppression over suitability to be considered by the authority on due diligence of various aspects but no hard and fast rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard."

31. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same Page No.# 22/23

time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. Mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service.

32. In the present case, the selection and appointment of petitioner as Constable (WO/WT/OPR) is subject to fulfillment of the terms and conditions of appointment order. As per the terms and conditions, the petitioner submitted a notarized affidavit that there was no pending criminal case against him and nothing in his character and antecedents which render him unsuitable to retain in the post. However, in the report of verification of character and antecedents it revealed that a criminal case was registered against him, therefore, a criminal case pending against the petitioner at the time of his joining in service, but, he submitted affidavit to the effect that there was no criminal case pending against him which is in violation of the terms and conditions of his appointment. The petitioner was provided with an opportunity to submit his written explanation and in his explanation he had stated that he paid less attention towards the case and was under bona fide presumption that it will not affect his service, which clearly indicates his admission that he had submitted affidavit of false declaration. Thus, in my considered view, the petitioner has submitted a false affidavit which would, ordinarily, entail his termination from service in terms of the terms and conditions of the appointment order as he has misrepresented. The fact remains that there was a criminal case pending against the petitioner at the time of his appointment and same has been admittedly concealed, although subsequently, he has been acquitted.

33. The petitioner was on probation for 2 (two) years and terminated him as per the terms and conditions laid in the appointment order on having been found involved in a Page No.# 23/23

criminal case which he has suppressed by submitting affidavit that he is not involved in any criminal case. Thus, the termination of the petitioner from the service cannot be held bad in law in view of the fact that the petitioner has violated the terms of the appointment order which he has accepted at the time of his appointment. Though the respondent authority has mentioned that the petitioner has violated the terms of the appointment which amounts to misconduct and not on unsuitability which may not be ground for termination of a probationer, same by itself would not be ground to interfere with the impugned order as the termination is clearly for violation of the terms of appointment and not on misconduct as claimed.

34. In view of what has been discussed herein above, I am of the considered view that there is no ground to interfere with the order 09.02.2024 passed by the Superintendent of Police (Commn), Assam, Ulubari, Guwahati and order dated 02.07.2024, passed by Inspector General of Police (Commn), Assam, Ulubari, Guwahati.

35. In the result, the writ petition fails and accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to cost(s).

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant