Vinod Kumar vs State And Ors (2023/Rjjd/011678)
2023 Latest Caselaw 3460 Raj

[2023/RJJD/011678]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5470/2018

Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Ram Singh, Resident Of Village Hunatpura, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director General Of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur.

3. Superintendent Of Police, Sri Ganganagar.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Inderjeet Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Bissa

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

24/04/2023

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed that

the order dated 16.05.2017, whereby petitioner's candidature for

the post of Constable has been rejected, be quashed.

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner applied for the post

of Constable in the Constable Recruitment Examination, 2013. On

being found meritorious, his name appeared in the select list.

3. When the petitioner was not issued appointment order, he

preferred a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.3321/2016, in which by way of interim order dated

29.03.2016, a coordinate Bench of this Court directed the

respondents to consider petitioner's representation.

[2023/RJJD/011678] (2 of 6) [CW-5470/2018]

4. In furtherance of the interim order dated 29.03.2016, the

petitioner submitted his representation dated 11.04.2016, which

came to be rejected by the respondents by order dated

20.05.2016, inter-alia, observing that as the petitioner had

concealed the pendency of criminal case (FIR No.205/2007, for

the offences under sections 323, 447, 504 and 34 of the Indian

Penal Code), he is not found suitable for the appointment.

5. Thereafter the order dated 06.09.2016, came to be passed

by the respondent No.3, whereby candidatures of 13 persons

including the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner's candidature

was rejected on account of pendency of criminal case.

6. The petitioner's above referred writ petition being S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.3321/2016 came to be disposed of by the High

Court on 20.01.2017, with the direction to the respondents to

consider petitioner's representation in light of judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and

the Division Bench Judgment in the case of Ashok Kuamr Vs.

State of Rajasthan : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1603/2011.

7. In furtherance of the order dated 20.01.2017, the petitioner

moved another representation, upon which the respondent No.3

passed an order dated 16.05.2017 holding the petitioner to be

ineligible for appointment, as he had not disclosed the factum of

a criminal case pending against him in the character verification/

declaration form. Said order dated 16.05.2017 is impugned in the

present petition.

8. Mr. Bissa, learned counsel for the respondent-State at the

outset submitted that when the petitioner's name was shown in

[2023/RJJD/011678] (3 of 6) [CW-5470/2018]

the select list, he was required to furnish verification roll in which

he was required to give details of cases pending against him, if

any. He highlighted that neither in the application form nor in the

said verification note, the petitioner had disclosed the particulars

of criminal case pending against him and it was only during the

process of character verification it was found that a criminal case

for offences under sections 323, 447, 504 and 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, pending against him in furtherance of the FIR

No.205/2007.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner

had no intention of concealing the information about the criminal

case while filing verification form and such disclosure was not

deliberate or ill-intentioned. It was argued that such suppression

cannot be a basis for denying appointment to the petitioner.

10. It was argued by Mr. Bissa that since the petitioner has

concealed the factum of pendency of criminal case against him,

his candidature cannot be considered and, therefore, there is no

error in the action of the respondents in holding the petitioner

ineligible or not suitable.

11. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that there

are plethora of judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in which

it has been held that suppression of information about pending

criminal case in verification form is a sufficient ground for

canceling the candidature or withholding appointment.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

13. In the case of Avatar Singh v. Union of India (Reported in

2016 (8) SCC 471), Hon'ble the Supreme Court while considering

[2023/RJJD/011678] (4 of 6) [CW-5470/2018]

a host of decisions on the question of suppression/ furnishing false

information has held that it is the employer's discretion to

consider a candidature in such event subject to certain objective

yardsticks. Court laid down certain guidelines. Relevant part

reads 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."

14. In Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. (Reported

in 2022 SCC Online SC 1300), Hon'ble the Supreme Court while

observing termination of service of a CRPF probationer for

suppression of material information of pending criminal case to be

justified, held thus:-

"90. In such circumstances, we undertook some exercise to shortlist the broad principles of law which should be made applicable to the litigations of the present nature. The principles are as follows:

a) Each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by the public employer concerned, through its

[2023/RJJD/011678] (5 of 6) [CW-5470/2018]

designated officials-more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society's security. [See Raj Kumar (supra)]

b) Even in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. The acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post. It would be still open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether the candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post.

c) The suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification Form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee. If it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service.

............

............

98. To our mind, therefore, if an enquiry revealed that the facts given were wrong, the respondent herein was at liberty to dispense with the services of the appellant Satish Chandra Yadav as the question of any stigma and penal consequences at this stage would not arise. It bears repetition that what has led to the termination of the services of

[2023/RJJD/011678] (6 of 6) [CW-5470/2018]

the appellant Satish Chandra Yadav is not his involvement in the criminal case which was then pending, and in which he had been acquitted subsequently but the fact that he had withheld relevant information while filling in the verification Form. He could be said to have exhibited or displayed such a tendency which shook the confidence of the respondent."

15. It is not in dispute that both in the application form and

verification roll, the petitioner did not disclose the factum of

pending criminal case against him.

16. Such being the position regardless of his acquittal, petitioner

has rightly been held ineligible for appointment in light of the

judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar

Singh Vs. Union of India and in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav

Vs. Union of India & Ors..

17. This Court does not find any merit and substances in the

present writ petition. The writ petition therefore fails.

18. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 141-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)