By placing major reliance on the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India, wherein it was observed that even in cases where a truthful disclosure about a concluded case was made, the employer would still have a right to consider antecedents of the candidate and could not be compelled to appoint such candidate, the Apex Court allowed the appeal instituted by the State in the instant case.
A Division Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarthna allowed the appeal instituted by the State against the order and judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan pertaining to the rejection of candidature of an applicant by observing that the question that was to be dealt was whether the applicant suppressed the material fact deliberately while filling the application form, the answer to the same was in the affirmative and thus the concerned authorities were right in rejecting the application of the applicant, the Bench ruled.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated March 4, 2020 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan whereby the High Court dismissed the said appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan and confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge directing the State to consider the case of the original writ petitioner for appointment to the post of Constable, hence the State preferred the present appeal.
The facts leading to the present case were that the applications were invited by the Director General of Police Rajasthan, through letter dated March 7, 2008 for recruitment to 4684 vacant posts of Constable, Constable (operator), Constable (driver) and Constable (Band) in different Districts/ Battalions/ Units of Rajasthan Police. As per the 2008 Recruitment Notification, all interested candidates were required to qualify the written test, physical efficiency test, proficiency test, special qualification test and an interview for securing appointment for different posts constable.
It was further provided that if the information in the application form was found incorrect, then such an application form was liable to be rejected at any stage of the selection process. In pursuance of the same, the respondent applied for the said post and submitted the application form. Thereafter in Para 15 of the Job Application Form dated March 26, 2008; the respondent categorically stated that there were no past criminal records against him and affirmed the same with a signed declaration.
However, it is pertinent to note that the original writ petitioner was already facing criminal proceedings at the time of filling of the application form and the same was not revealed by him.
When the concerned authorities got apprised of the same, they rejected the candidature of the original writ petitioner on the ground that the material information was suppressed deliberately by the petitioner.
Consequently, the petitioner preferred the writ petitioner before the Single Judge of the High Court and the same was allowed. Further directions were issued to the State to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Constable.
Aggrieved by the same, the State preferred the appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the present appeal and confirmed the order and judgment passed by the Single Judge.
It was this impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench that was assailed by the State by way of present appeal.
The original writ petitioner faced three to four FIRs, out of which, in two cases he was acquitted by entering into a compromise and in one case he has been convicted, however has been given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. It is submitted that one criminal case is still pending against him and that such a person cannot be appointed as a constable. Reliance was placed on the cases, Avtar Singh v. Union of India, as well as Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India,
After hearing the submissions of both the sides, the Court noted that the post for which the original writ petitioner was seeking appointment was that of a constable and it is not a disputed fact that the constable is obligated to maintain law and order. It was further observed that an employee in a uniformed service comes with a higher level of integrity and is expected to uphold the sanctity of law and on the contrary any act in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated.
Reverting back to the facts of the instant case, the petitioner suppressed material information on the application form. Moreover, he made a false statement that he was not facing any criminal case, the Court noted. It was further submitted that the Single Bench of the High Court directed the State to reconsider his case on the ground that the offences for which he was alleged off were trivial in nature, the Court in view of the same stated that the question for consideration was not whether the offences were trivial in nature or not but was on suppression of material fact by the original petitioner in respect of his criminal antecedents and the false statement made by him in the application form. To deal with the same, the Court referred to a catena of cases.
The decision of this Court in the case of Daya Shankar Yadav was referred wherein it was held that an employee on probation can be discharged from service or a prospective employee may be refused employment : (i) on the ground of unsatisfactory antecedents and character, disclosed from his conviction in a criminal case, or his involvement in a criminal offence.
Further in the case State of A.P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu, this Court observed that the object of requiring information in the attestation form and the declaration thereafter by the candidate is to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to enter into or continue in service.
In another judgment of this Court in the case of Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P, it was observed that a candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim the right to continue in service and the employer, having regard to the nature of employment as well as other aspects, has the discretion to terminate his services.
Further in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited v. Anil Kanwariya, wherein it was observed that The issue/question may be considered from another angle, from the employer's point of view. The question is not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently acquitted or not. The question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of the employment i.e. while submitting the declaration/verification and/or applying for a post made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressing material fact of having involved in a criminal case. If the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him.
Also the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India was preferred wherein it was observed that even in cases where a truthful disclosure about a concluded case is made, the employer would still have a right to consider antecedents of the candidate and could not be compelled to appoint such candidate.
Thus, in the light of the above stated precedents, the Court opined that the authority did not commit any error by rejecting the candidature of the original petitioner for the post of constable in the instant case.
The Court further submitted that even at the time of proceedings before the High Court, there were three to four FIRs registered against the petitioner and were converted to criminal trials and he was even convicted, however was granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act and one criminal case was lying pending. Thus it was held that the order and judgment passed by the High Court was unsustainable both on facts and law. Accordingly, the present appeal was allowed.
Case name: STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. Vs. CHETAN JEFF
Picture Source :
