Madhya Pradesh High Court
Atul Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
WRIT PETITION No. 13526 of 2017
ATUL THAKUR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma - Senior Advocate with Shri Quazi Fakhruddin -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi - Deputy Advocate General for the respondent No.1 -
State.
Shri Anshuman Singh - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
(Reserved on : 30.01.2025)
(Pronounced on : 21.02.2025)
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Vivek Jain, Judge
The present petition has been filed challenging the order Annexure P-2
dated 13.07.2015, whereby an order of dismissal of petitioner from the post of
Civil Judge Class - II has been issued by the State Government as a
consequence of charges being proved against him in departmental enquiry.
Challenge is also made to order Annexure P-1 dated 08.03.2017, whereby the
representation of the petitioner for reconsideration of the matter has been turned
down by the High Court vide order dated 08.03.2017. In the intervening period,
the petitioner had also filed statutory appeal, which had been rejected by the
competent Appellate Authority as per Rules of Business of Executive
Government vide Annexure P-14 dated 05.10.2016.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter relates to
suppression of criminal antecedents by the petitioner in the attestation form. It is
contended that the petitioner qualified the examination conducted for
appointment of Judicial Officers by M.P. Public Service Commission in the
year 2007 and on 31.03.2008, he was appointed to the post of Civil Judge Class-
II by the State Government and a consequential posting order was issued by the
High Court on 14.07.2008 placing him as a trainee Judge. It is contended that
on 10.12.2010, the petitioner was placed under suspension, which was revoked
on 14.05.2012 and in the intervening time a charge sheet was issued to him on
23.02.2011 (Annexure P-7), wherein charge was framed against him to the
effect that two FIRs have been lodged against him at Crime No.313/2002 and
812/2007, both at Police Station Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha, but he
suppressed the said criminal cases in the attestation form, though the said cases
were still pending against him on the date of filling up attestation form.
3. It is argued that the Enquiry Officer wrongly held the charge to be
proved in the matter of suppression of criminal case arising from FIR at Crime
No.313/2002, though the charge in respect of FIR at Crime No.812/2007 was
not found sustained by the Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has argued that the enquiry suffered from various technical defects and that the
case was not a case of willful suppression of criminal antecedents, but was the
case of bonafide mistake as there was no suppression of required information in
an wilful manner. Thus, the case was not the case of harshest punishment of
dismissal from service. It is further argued that the cases against the petitioner
related to trivial offences, which could not be said to be grave in nature so as to
justify awarding of punishment of dismissal from service. Learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner has relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court
to submit that in case of trivial offences, the employer shall adopt a sympathetic
view and dismissal from service is not the appropriate punishment.
4. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by learned counsel for
the respondents. It is contended that the petitioner was a contender to the post of
Civil Judge. The said post carries with it a number of responsibilities and duties
towards the litigants so also the society. A person seeking appointment on the
post of Civil Judge should be a person of impeccable integrity and antecedents.
It is vehemently argued that firstly, the offences were not trivial and secondly,
even if the offences had been trivial, then also mere suppression of criminal
antecedents is in itself a sufficiently grave misconduct so as to justify dismissal
from service.
5. It is also argued that it is not a case where the candidate had truthfully
disclosed the criminal antecedent and despite that the employer had decided not
to appoint the candidate in service and for that purpose the offences being trivial
in nature or amounting to moral turpitude or not would have been relevant.
However, in the present case not only the offences amount to moral turpitude,
but also the very suppression of antecedents is itself sufficient warranting
dismissal from service, more so, when the person was holding the post of Civil
Judge. A person holding the said post is expected to be having antecedents and
character above board and free from all doubts and clouds. Thus, on these
grounds, the petition is prayed to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. The petitioner was admittedly appointed vide order dated 31.03.2008.
Prior to issuance of appointment order, the petitioner had signed the attestation
form on 02.12.2007. In the attestation form column No.12 had two portions
(क and ख). Column 12-क comprised the following queries and a common
answer "No" was indicated by the petitioner in response to all the queries in
column 12(क). The queries were as under:-
(i) Have you ever been arrested ?
(ii) Have you ever been prosecuted ?
(iii) Have you ever been arrested ?
(iv) Have you ever been asked to submit a bond ?
(v) Have you ever been fined ?
(vi) Have you ever been convicted for any offence by a
Court of law ?
(vii) Have you ever been debarred from the examinations
conducted by any Public Service Commission or declared
disqualified ?
(viii) Have you ever been debarred from appearing in
examination conducted by any University or educational
institution or authority or expelled from the same ?
8. Column 12 (ख) comprised the following queries and in response to all
those queries, the petitioner had marked a common response "No". The queries
were as under:-
(I) At the time of filling up this attestation form whether any
case is pending against you in any Court, University or any
educational institution/authority.
(II) If the answer in response to any of the queries in para क
or ख is Yes, then you should give the complete particulars of
the case, arrest, detention/fine, conviction and sentence and if
at the time of filling up of this attestation form any case is
pending before any Court/University/educational authority,
then its nature should be disclosed. Apart from this information,
the following information shall also be given wherever
applicable :-
(i) Offence/charge to registration in Police Station.
(ii) Whether challan presented in Court with name of Court.
(iii) Case Number before the Court and date of disposal.
(iv) Punishment imposed.
(v) Whether acquitted.
(vi) Whether acquittal is on the basis of benefit of doubt or
withdrawal of prosecution.
(emphasis supplied)
9. The said attestation form contained a remark that the candidate should
also see the warning given at the top of the attestation form and that relates to
drastic consequences in case of suppression of material information.
10. In the above backdrop, the status of cases against the petitioner if
seen, then it comes out that FIR No.313/2002 was registered against the
petitioner under Section 420 I.P.C. and Section 3/7 of the Essential
Commodities Act. The petitioner was running a petrol pump at the relevant
point of time and as submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the
matter related to overcharging of consumers from the fuel being sold from the
petrol pump. The petitioner was acquitted in the said offence on the basis of
compromise on 06.02.2008 under Section 420 I.P.C. and acquitted under
Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act as the charges were not proved.
Thus, on the date of filling up of attestation form, i.e. 02.12.2007 the case
before the Criminal Court was still pending, which ended in compromise for
some of the charges and acquittal for rest of the charges, for obvious reasons, as
there was compromise with the complainant.
11. So far as the other offence at Crime No.812/2007 is concerned, the
said case was under Sections 323, 324, 342 and 506/34 I.P.C. The J.M.F.C. took
cognizance against him on 05.12.2008 and the said cased ended in compromise
on 04.03.2011. Though, this case was not disclosed in attestation form, but it
was disclosed in affidavit dated 17.04.2008, which is after the date of
appointment, though the said affidavit is not on record, but reference to the said
fact is contained in the enquiry report. The enquiry officer conducted an enquiry
and in the enquiry report the enquiry officer found the charge proved in respect
to suppression of offence in Crime No.313/2002 and did not find the charge in
the matter of suppression of Crime No.812/2007 proved by holding that looking
to the stage of the said case and looking to the queries in the attestation form,
suppression of offence at Crime No.812/2007 does not amount to any
misconduct. However, the suppression of offence at Crime No.313/2002 was
held to be an act of willful suppression. Therefore, we proceed to dwell upon
the aspect of suppression of Crime No.313/2002.
12. Crime No.313/2002 was registered in the year 2002 and related to
overcharging of consumers in the petrol pump run by the petitioner. Section 420
I.P.C. is undisputedly an offence of moral turpitude. The Department of Home,
Government of Madhya Pradesh has issued Circular dated 05.06.2003, which
was in force at the relevant point of time and as per the said Circular offence
under Section 420 I.P.C. amounted to offence of moral turpitude.
13. The petitioner admittedly suppressed pendency of this case and trial
before the Court in the attestation form submitted on 02.12.2007. In the
statement of defence submitted to the District Judge (Inspection and Vigilance),
Indore dated 04.07.2011, it has been contended by the petitioner therein that he
filled attestation form under a bonafide belief and that he was student at that
time and ignorant about legal matters. It is surprising to note that a candidate
getting selected to the post of Civil Judge Class - II is projecting himself to be
ignorant about legal matters and such ignorance is not pleaded by a School or
College student, but by a Civil Judge selectee, that too at the time when he was
around 30 years of age.
14. In yet another defence statement submitted to the Registrar General of
the High Court dated 22.02.2012, the petitioner mentioned in para 1 that he
belongs to a business family and before joining the State Judicial Service, no
occasion arose for him or his family members to submit any declaration in the
nature of attestation form. It was contended that lapse in not mentioning the
information in respect to Crime No.313/2002 occurred only due to inadvertence
and mistaken information supplied by his counsel. In para 4 of statement of his
defence, it was contended that the complainant had filed an application for
compounding the case by compromise on 15.11.2007 and counsel had
erroneously informed him that the case has been compounded and closed on
15.11.2007 itself and only because of this erroneous information supplied by his
counsel by mistake he did not disclose any fact about crime No.313/2002.
However, it cannot be believed that a Civil Judge selectee did not know that
some of the offences are non-compoundable and that the case comes to end not
by filing application, but upon passing order by the Court.
15. As noted above by us, the attestation form had various queries and the
queries related to the candidate having ever been prosecuted, submitted bond or
any case being pending before any Court or authority. In Column 12 (ख)
specific mention was made that if in response to any of the queries, the answer
is "Yes", then complete particulars of the crime, FIR number, date of challan,
name of Court, status of case, etc. has to be given. The petitioner did not
disclose the fact of he having been prosecuted. Even if he was under impression
that the case has been compromised on 15.11.2007, then it was evident that he
had been prosecuted, because FIR was registered in the year 2002 and he was
bound to disclose that fact. The matter related to cheating with the consumers
purchasing petrol from the petrol pump run by the petitioner. If a person who is
selected for the post of Civil Judge suppresses a pending case or a previous
prosecution in the matter of cheating, then it cannot be said to be a trivial
matter. In any case, cheating is never a trivial matter and it certainly amounts to
moral turpitude.
16. Therefore, the case is clearly a case of wilful suppression of material
information in the character attestation form and the petitioner wilfully
suppressed his criminal antecedents. Now the effect of such suppression has to
be seen and as per counsel for the petitioner suppression being of trivial matter
should have been overlooked and ignored and could not form a basis for
dismissal from service.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P., (2024) 5 SCC
264, wherein it has been held that mere suppression is not a relevant fact and the
employer can look into the nature of criminal case, socio-economic strata of
candidate etc. However, in the present case, the petitioner belongs to a upper
strata of society as he admits to belong to business family and running a petrol
pump. The query in the attestation form was clear and he is a legally trained
person and got selected to the post of Civil Judge. The offence in question also
amounts to moral turpitude as it was an offence of cheating along with
provisions of Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, this judgement does not
help the petitioner at all.
18. Reliance is also placed on judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of Umesh Chandra Yadav v. Northern Railway, (2022) 14 SCC 244. In the
said case, the candidate was a juvenile when the criminal complaint was lodged
against him and in those peculiar circumstances of the case and looking to the
nature of queries in the attestation form, the Supreme Court has held that
suppression cannot be said to be not bonafide. This case was also a case of
constable as was the petitioner in Ravindra Kumar (supra).
19. Various other judgments have been cited by learned counsel for the
petitioner including Kamal Nayan Mishra v. State of M.P., (2010) 2 SCC 169,
and in the case of State of W.B. v. Mitul Kumar Jana, (2023) 14 SCC 719. In
the aforesaid cases, either the offences were held to be trivial and the clause in
attestation form held to be ambiguous and non-specific, or the case related to
the candidate being subjected to termination of services many years after entry
in service, that too without any departmental enquiry. On facts the Supreme
Court held that the nature of offence can be looked into and the circumstances
surrounding to which suppression has been made can be looked into. However,
the present case is a case of willful suppression of a legally trained candidate,
who is getting selected to the post of Civil Judge and the offence also
admittedly amounts to moral turpitude. The subsequent acquittal is also on basis
of compromise.
20. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Mohd. Imran v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 17 SCC 696, in the said
case the Supreme Court had directed reconsideration of the case of a candidate
for judicial services and held that mere disclosure is not sufficient to hold the
candidate suitable for candidature. It was not the case of suppression of facts,
but was a case where despite truthful disclosure criminal antecedents, his
candidature was turned down.
21. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Apoorva Pathak vs. High Court of M.P. and another 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1445, wherein the Supreme Court has allowed the writ petition of
the candidate. However, the said case involved a trivial offence and proceeds on
the ground that the prosecution was under Section 289 I.P.C. relating to pet dog
of the candidate biting a neighbour, and for which she was acquitted in the year
2018 and this fact had been truthfully disclosed in the attestation form. This
case was also not a case of suppression of antecedents.
22. The petitioner in the present case belonged to judicial service and
there was suppression of material information in the attestation form. In the case
of Apoorva Pathak v. High Court of M.P., (2019) 4 MP LJ 400, it has been
held by the Division Bench that the information to be given by the candidate
must be true and there should be no suppression or false supply of the requisite
information in a case of deliberate suppression of fact would in itself assume
significance and employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature
for terminating services of the candidate. The Division Bench has held as
under:-
21. In view of the obtaining factual matrix of the present case
and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the authorities
relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not
render any assistance to the petitioner. The judgments relied
upon by the petitioner in the cases of Sandeep Kumar (supra)
and Dhawal Singh (supra) were considered by the Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra)
and after considering various decisions, the larger Bench in a
reference made to it has observed that the information given to
the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal, 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
supply of the requisite information. It has also observed that 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.
22. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh
Pawar v. High Court of M.P., (2018) 2 MP LJ 419 wherein the
decision of another Division Bench of this Court granting relief
and benefit to a petitioner who had been acquitted on the basis of
a compromise has been set aside. In the case of Union Territory,
Chandigarh Administration v. Pradeep Kumar, 2018 MPLJ
Online (S.C.) 41 : (2018) 1 SCC 797 the Apex Court held that
mere acquittal in a criminal case does not confer any right on an
individual to claim employment and in spite of such acquittal the
employer has a right to take into consideration all aspects and
reject the claim of the applicant on this ground.
25. In the light of the aforesaid facts and enunciation of law,
in the present case the employer has taken into consideration the
specific language of clause 14 of the attestation form and the fact
that the said attestation form was submitted on 18-4-2018 after
execution of personal bond on 17-3-2018, but the said fact was
not disclosed in the form. Further, the petitioner submitted an
affidavit on 19-4-2018 before the respondents, but in the said
affidavit also she did not disclose the aforesaid registration of
crime, arrest and execution of personal bond by her. The
employer has taken into consideration the conduct of the
petitioner of non-disclosure and suppression in the attestation
form, irrespective of the nature of allegations against the
candidate which may be of petty nature. The conduct of a
candidate of suppression or misrepresentation of information in
the attestation form itself amounts to moral turpitude. The
petitioner was a candidate to be recruited to judicial service and
in such appointment, a candidate must be of impeccable
character and integrity."
The said judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court, however, in the
subsequent selection when the same candidate truthfully disclosed her criminal
antecedents, then for subsequent selection her candidature was upheld by the
Supreme Court in Apoorva Pathak vs. High Court of M.P. and another 2023
SCC OnLine SC 1445.
23. In the case of State of W.B. v. S.k. Nazrul Islam, (2011) 10 SCC 184,
even in the cases of Constables, it has been held by the Supreme Court that as
the candidate has concealed the fact that he was involved in a criminal case and
therefore, upheld the rejection of candidature. A similar view was taken by
another Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. through its
Principal Secretary vs. Dinesh Singh Parihar, 2015 SCC OnLine MP 7526 by
holding as under:-
"6. Considering the above submissions, the impugned order of
the Writ Court and considering the case of Mehar Singh (supra),
we find that in the matter of Mehar Singh Apex Court had come
down heavily regarding the fact that the police force is a
disciplined post and it shoulders the great responsibility of
maintaining law and order and public order in the society. It is
clear that a candidate to be recruited to the police service must
be worthy of candidature and must be a person of utmost
rectitude and must have impeccable character and integrity. A
person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category.
Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that
he was completely exonerated. Persons who are likely to erode
the credibility of the police ought not to enter the police force.
No doubt the Screening Committee has not been constituted in
the case considered by this Court, as rightly pointed out by
learned counsel for the respondent, in the present case, the
Superintendent of Police is the appointing authority. There is no
allegation of mala-fides against the person taking the said
decision nor is the decision shown to be perverse or irrational.
There is no material to show that the appellant was falsely
implicated. Basis of impugned judgment is acquittal for want of
evidence or discharge based on compounding. In the present
case the appellants/State having alleged concealment regarding
the registration of offence by the respondent/petitioner and
hence the impugned order of cancellation of his candidature is
passed. Whereas the learned Writ Court in the present case has
considered that there was provision for an approval of the
Inspector General of Police under Regulation 54 of the M.P.
Manual and Regulations even when a candidate had been
convicted. In this aspect, we find that the appeal needs to be
allowed. The discretion is available to the appellants/State
regarding concealment/suppression; and parity cannot be
claimed in the present case with Mehar Singh (supra). Hence,
the order of learned Court is set aside and the petition of the
petitioner is dismissed."
The aforesaid case was the case of Constable in police force whereas the
present case is one of appointment in judicial service.
24. Very recently the Supreme Court in the case of Yogeeta Chandra vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 142 has
upheld the termination of services of the judicial officer for not disclosing
pendency of criminal case at the time of making application. The Supreme
Court noted that subsequent closure of criminal cases is immaterial when the
candidate has made dishonest suppression. The Supreme Court has held as
under:-
"6. In the application form, the applicant, who, as such,
applied for the post of a judicial officer was required to
disclose certain facts, more particularly, the facts stated in
Clause 18 of the Application Form and non-disclosure of true
facts and not only that but saying "No" can certainly be said to
be suppression of material facts. It was immaterial whether
there was a closure report or acquittal or conviction. At this
stage, it is required to be noted that the particulars which were
asked, whether "did you ever figure as an accused or a
complainant in any criminal case? If so, give particulars with
result." Therefore, the factum of figuring the name either as an
accused or a complainant in any criminal case was required to
be disclosed with full particulars and with result. Therefore,
the appellant cannot take the plea and/or defence that as a
Closure Report was filed in the complaint in which she was
the accused, the same was not required to be disclosed. On the
basis of the nature of the allegations in the complaint either as
an accused or a complainant, it is ultimately for the employer
to take a conscious decision whether to appoint such a person
or not. What could be considered while actually appointing a
person depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case
and it is ultimately for the employer to take a conscious
decision. The post which was applied by the appellant was a
vey important post of judicial officer and therefore, it was
expected of a person who applied for the judicial officer to
disclose the true and correct facts and give full particulars as
asked in the application form. If in the application form itself,
she has not stated the true and correct facts and suppressed the
material facts, what further things can be expected from her
after she was appointed as a judicial officer.
7. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court, it appears that it was the case on behalf of the appellant
that the services of the appellant could not be put to an end
without holding the departmental enquiry under Article 311 of
the Constitution of India. However, it is required to be noted
that the termination was not on the ground of any misconduct.
It was the case of cancellation of the appointment on not
disclosing the true and correct facts in the application form.
Therefore, as rightly observed by the High Court, there was no
question of holding any departmental enquiry under Article
311 of the Constitution of India."
In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court went on to hold that in such
cases even departmental enquiry is not essential. However, in the present case, a
regular departmental enquiry has indeed been conducted.
25. The Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India,
(2016) 8 SCC 471 has held in para 38.7 that in case of deliberate suppression of
facts with respect to pending cases such false information by itself will assume
significance and employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature
for terminating services of the person. The Supreme Court even went on to hold
that even when a pendency of criminal case was not known to the candidate at
the time of filling of form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing
authority would be free to take decision after considering the seriousness of the
crime. The suppression of cases of trivial nature may only be overlooked and
that too looking to the nature of post and duties. This will obviously not apply
where the post in question is a important or sensitive post like Judicial Officer,
requiring highest standards of character and integrity and offences involving
moral turpitude. In the said case, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"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 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."
26. In the case of State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Pradeep Kumar, (2018) 1
SCC 797, the Supreme Court has held that even in the case of acquittal it is
open for the employer to examine the suitability of the candidate and take
appropriate decision. Similar view was taken in the case of State of Rajasthan
v. Love Kush Meena reported in AIR 2021 SC 1610 so also in the case of
Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 317. All the said cases were
the cases where the charges were of trivial nature and acquittal had been
recorded. The Supreme Court held that even in the cases of acquittal the
employer can take note of all the attending circumstances and even in the cases
of acquittal the employer is at liberty to take appropriate decision. However, in
the present case not only where the acquittal is on the basis of compromise, but
even the pendency of the case was suppressed, which is in itself is not
condonable. The candidate was not a semi-literate person who did not
understand the nuances of language, which is not complicated one, but plain,
simple and clear. Even if that had been the case, an incumbent for public service
should be careful enough to disclose all information truthfully and a wilful act
of suppression cannot be brushed under camouflage of ignorance.
27. So far as the other grounds raised by the petitioner that once he was
appointed in service, therefore, there should be deemed to be an estoppel against
the employer and no decision and no adverse action could thereafter be
undertaken against the petitioner and heavy reliance was placed on the case of
Mitul Kumar Jana (supra). This argument also deserves rejection because in
the present case a regular departmental enquiry had been conducted, though the
factum of suppression was admitted and defence of legal ignorance was set up.
It is a case of suppression and not a case where the information had been
disclosed truthfully prior to issuance of appointment order. At no point of time
before issuance of appointment order, the petitioner has been shown to have
disclosed his prosecution relating to Crime No.313/2002.
28. Consequently, we find no merits in the present petition; the same
deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) (VIVEK JAIN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
rj
