Ranjeet Bishnoi S/O Shri Mangilal ... vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5830 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:29389-DB]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 613/2023

Ranjeet Bishnoi S/o Shri Mangilal Bishnoi, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Dhala Ki Dhani Post Ren Tehsil Merta City District Nagaur
Rajasthan.
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                       Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
         Department         Of     Home         Affairs,      Secretariat,   Jaipur,
         Rajasthan.
2.       The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Police Head
         Quarters, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3.       Superintendent Of Police, Gpr Ajmer, Rajasthan.
4.       Commandant Of Police, Police Training School, Bansi
         Khurd, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Himanshu Jain
For Respondent(s)            :

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment

11/10/2023

1. By way of the instant appeal, a challenge is made to the

order impugned dated 10.04.2023, passed by the learned Single

Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant herein,

was dismissed.

2. Concisely noted, the factual matrix of the instant appeal

dictates that the respondent-State issued an advertisement in the

Year 2018, inviting applications for recruitment on the post of

Constable. Thereafter, the appellant participated in the said

[2023:RJ-JP:29389-DB] (2 of 8) [SAW-613/2023]

recruitment process and was duly selected on the concerned post.

However, pursuant to the appellant's appointment, the fact of

previous registration of an FIR and the consequential prosecution

of the appellant, came into the knowledge of the respondent-

State, which was wilfully and admittedly concealed by the

appellant at the time of recruitment. Therefore, as result, the

appellant vide order 08.03.2019, was removed from service by the

respondent-State. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached this

Court by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10776/2021 titled as

Ranjeet Bishnoi vs. State of Rajasthan. However, the said petition

came to be dismissed vide order impugned dated 10.04.2023.

3. In this background, learned counsel for the appellant has

submitted that the order impugned dated 10.04.2023 is passed in

contravention of the settled position of the law and therefore,

warrants interference of this Court. It is submitted that vide order

dated 08.03.2019, the appellant was removed from service, while

serving on the post of Constable, on the ground of concealment

and suppression of the fact of lodging of an FIR against the

appellant and his arrest in that matter. However, subsequently, the

appellant came to be discharged from all charges by the

concerned court on 06.02.2021. Therefore, as the appellant was

acquitted, the impugned actions of the respondent-State in

relieving the appellant from service, were unjustified and dehors

the provisions of the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1989. Lastly,

whilst praying for the quashing of the order impugned, learned

counsel submitted that a reformatory approach should be adopted

by the Courts while dealing with alike matters, as a person cannot

[2023:RJ-JP:29389-DB] (3 of 8) [SAW-613/2023]

be held accountable for a miscalculated action undertaken in their

youth, as to err is to be human.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused

through the record of the appeal.

5. The central grievance articulated by the appellant is that

despite having been exonerated from the criminal proceedings

initiated against the appellant, the respondent-State

released/discharged the appellant from service, on the ground of

wilful and deliberate concealment of the appellant's involvement in

a criminal case and his arrest and prosecution in connection

therewith, at the time of participation in the process of selection.

6. Having perused through the record of the instant appeal, the

following admitted factual considerations have come to light, as

noted herein-under:-

6.1 That FIR No. 312/2015 was registered against the appellant

at Police Station Ashok Nagar, District Jaipur on 09.10.2015 for

the offences under Sections 147, 149,341,283,188,332,353 and

427 of the India Penal Code and Section 3 of the PDPP Act.

6.2 That the appellant was arrested in the said criminal case and

subsequently, was also charge-sheeted and as a consequence,

faced trial before the concerned court.

6.3 That in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the

respondent-State for appointment on the post of Constable, the

appellant submitted his application form for participation in the

said process. However, admittedly, the appellant

suppressed/concealed the above material aspect qua the criminal

case and trial, and the same were not brought into the notice of

the appointing authority.

[2023:RJ-JP:29389-DB] (4 of 8) [SAW-613/2023]

6.4 That in unattributable disregard of the same, the appointing

authority offered appointment to the appellant vide order dated

12.10.2018 but subsequently, during police verification, the above

said facts came into the notice of the State authorities. Hence,

vide order dated 08.03.2019, the appellant was terminated from

service.

7. It is a settled position of law that non-disclosure of material

information and/or submitting false information, in no uncertain

terms, can be treated as a ground for an employer to cancel

and/or terminate the appointment of the defaulting

party/employee. In Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.

reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, it was held as under:-

"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 recourse 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

[2023:RJ-JP:29389-DB] (5 of 8) [SAW-613/2023]

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 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

[2023:RJ-JP:29389-DB] (6 of 8) [SAW-613/2023]

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."

8. Similarly, in Satish Kumar Chandra vs. Union of India

and Ors. reported in (2023) 7 SCC 536, the Hon'ble Apex Court

held as under:

"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 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

[2023:RJ-JP:29389-DB] (7 of 8) [SAW-613/2023]

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.

d) The generalisations about the youth, career prospects and age of the candidates leading to condonation of the offenders' conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided.

e) The Court should inquire whether the Authority concerned whose action is being challenged acted mala fide.

f) Is there any element of bias in the decision of the Authority?

g) Whether the procedure of inquiry adopted by the Authority concerned was fair and reasonable?"

9. Therefore, it can be said without a pale of doubt that in an

eventuality where a candidate wilfully suppresses material

information at the time of appointment, and the fact of such

suppression subsequently comes within the knowledge of the

employer, different courses of action may be adopted by the

employer depending upon the nature of fault as also the nature

default i.e. material concealment, which may tantamount to

termination of service, as per the discretion to be exercised by the

employer.

10. Therefore, considering the observations made herein-above

and especially taking note of the fact that the appellant admittedly

concealed/suppressed the fact of registration of a criminal case,

despite possessing complete and unhindered knowledge regarding

the registration of the said case and the subsequent trial; that 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

[2023:RJ-JP:29389-DB] (8 of 8) [SAW-613/2023]

antecedents of the employee, especially when seeking

appointment on the post of a Police Constable, which requires

garnering and establishing the trust of the community at large and

relying upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated

in Avtar Singh (Supra) and Satish Kumar Chandra (Supra),

this Court deems it appropriate to uphold the discretion exercised

by the State in terminating the service/appointment of the

appellant.

11. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge has

passed a well-reasoned speaking order and after consideration of

material aspects, has arrived at a logical conclusion. This Court is

in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the learned

Single Judge and therefore, no interference is warranted with the

order impugned.

12. As a result, in view of the observations made herein-above,

the instant appeal is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

(SAMEER JAIN),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ

Pooja /57

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)