Service Law – Respondent applied for appointment to the post of Constable in Odisha State Police specifically stating in his application that he was not involved in any criminal case – Appointed – During verification, it was found that he was involved in a case u/ss.294/323/324/326/336/337/427/379/506/34, IPC – Respondent was discharged from service – Odisha Administrative Tribunal rejected Original Application (OA) filed by the respondent – Reversed by High Court – On appeal, held: Respondent was seeking public employment in the State police service – His duties, on appointment to the service, would be of a responsible character, bearing intrinsically on the maintenance of law and order and with consequences for personal liberty of citizens – To expect that an applicant for such a position would be truthful in the disclosure of information sought about the antecedents is a justifiable basis for assessment of personality and character – Case against the respondent cannot be regarded as being trivial in nature – Despite being involved in the criminal case, the respondent suppressed these facts – Criminal case was quashed in exercise of jurisdiction u/s.482, CrPC on the basis of compromise between the parties much after the order of discharge – Impugned order set aside – Order of the Tribunal maintained – OA filed by the respondent is dismissed – Orissa Police Rules – r.673.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The respondent was seeking public employment in the State police service. His duties, on appointment to the service, would be of a responsible character, bearing intrinsically on the maintenance of law and order and with consequences for personal liberty of citizens. To expect that an applicant for such a position would be truthful in the disclosure of information sought about the antecedents is a justifiable basis for assessment of personality and character. The employer can legitimately conclude that a person who has suppressed material facts does not deserve to be in its employment. In the present case, the case against the respondent cannot be regarded as being trivial in nature. That apart, it is evident that, despite being involved in the criminal case, the respondent suppressed these facts from the authorities while applying for the post of a Constable in the State Police. The criminal case was quashed in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC on the basis of a compromise between the parties much after the order of discharge. Hence, the view which has been taken by the High Court is palpably unsustainable. The Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. While maintaining the order of the Tribunal, the OA filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. [Paras 7, 8][647-H; 648-A-D]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.