Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court was called upon to examine whether a nearly three-decade-old dismissal of a paramilitary constable was justified when the sole allegation against him was that he failed to disclose a past criminal case in which he had already been acquitted. The matter raised an important question, can a young candidate’s misunderstanding of disclosure requirements be treated as deliberate suppression, especially when the acquittal had taken place even before the recruitment process began?
The case involved a CRPF constable selected in June 1995. In October 1996, his services were terminated after authorities discovered he had not revealed a 1993 FIR under Sections 323, 325 and 34 of the IPC. He had been acquitted in December 1994, months before recruitment started. He challenged the dismissal before the High Court, and in 2019, a single judge set aside the termination but refused to grant back wages, applying the No Pay, No Work principle. This led to two appeals, one by the Union government disputing his reinstatement and another by the constable seeking back wages, seniority and notional service benefits.
During arguments, the Union government insisted that failure to disclose any criminal case amounts to concealment of vital information, irrespective of acquittal, and reflects adversely on the integrity required in uniformed services. The constable argued that the acquittal predated the advertisement itself and that, at just 23 years of age, he genuinely did not understand that he was required to disclose a case that had already ended in his favour. He maintained that such a lapse was not intentional and should not destroy his career.
The Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor observed that when a candidate has been acquitted before the recruitment process even begins, non-disclosure of that fact cannot automatically be treated as misconduct or a ground to deny public employment. The Bench also accepted that at a young age, a recruit may not fully appreciate the technicalities of disclosure, though he cannot completely escape the consequences of his omission.
In its final order, the Court directed his reinstatement subject to medical fitness, denied back wages, extended continuity of service and notional benefits, and declined to grant seniority for the period he remained out of service.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
