Service Law – Appointment – Post of Constable – Suppression of material fact by the candidate in respect of his criminal antecedents and making false statement in the job application form – Rejection of his candidature – Writ petition by the candidate – Single Judge of the High Court held that the offences for which the candidate was charged with of trivial in nature and their suppression should have been ignored thus, the State directed to consider him for the post – Upheld by the Division Bench – On appeal, held: It is the duty of the constable is to maintain law and order – Thus, he/she is expected to be honest, trustworthy, reliable and with integrity above the board – Any act in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated – On facts, the candidate did not confirm to the said expectations/requirements – He suppressed the material facts of his criminal antecedents and did not disclose in the application form that against him a criminal case/FIR is pending – On the contrary, he made false statement that he is not facing any criminal case – Also, during the proceedings before the High Courts, the candidate faced 3 to 4 more FIRs, out of which, in two cases he was acquitted by entering into a compromise and in other he was convicted, however given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act – Thus, the authorities justified in rejecting his candidature – Judgment and order of the High Court quashed and set aside – Subsequent events.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The post on which the respondent is seeking the appointment is the post of constable. It cannot be disputed that the duty of the constable is to maintain law and order. Therefore, it is expected that he should be honest, trustworthy and that his integrity is above board and that he is reliable. An employee in the uniformed service presupposes a higher level of integrity as such a person is expected to uphold the law and on the contrary any act in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated. In the instant case, the respondent has not confirmed to the above expectations/ requirements. He suppressed the material facts of his criminal antecedents. He did not disclose in the application form that against him a criminal case/FIR is pending. On the contrary, in the application form, he made a false statement that he is not facing any criminal case. Therefore, due to the said suppression, his candidature came to be rejected by the appropriate authority. Despite the above, the Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitioner and directed the State to consider the case of the respondent for appointment as a constable mainly on the ground that the offences were trivial in nature and the suppression of such offences should have been ignored. The same was upheld by the Division Bench. [Para 6.1][700-A-D]
1.2 The question is one of suppression of material fact by the original writ petitioner in respect of his criminal antecedents and making a false statement in the application form. If in the beginning itself, he has suppressed the material fact in respect to his criminal antecedents and in fact made an incorrect statement, how can he be appointed as a constable. How can he be trusted thereafter in future? How it is expected that thereafter he will perform his duty honestly and with integrity? Therefore, as such the authorities were justified in rejecting the candidature of the respondent for the post of constable. [Paras 6.2 and 6.3][700-E-F]
1.3 It cannot be said that the authority committed any error in rejecting the candidature of the respondent for the post of constable. [Para 7][706-D]
1.4 Even otherwise it is required to be noted that subsequently and during the proceedings before the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench, there are three to four other FIRs filed against the respondent culminating into criminal trials and in two cases he has been acquitted on the ground of compromise and in one case though convicted, he has been granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. One more criminal case is pending against him. Therefore, the respondent cannot be appointed to such a post of constable. [Para 8][706-E]
1.5 In view thereof and for the reasons stated, both, the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have erred in directing the State to consider the case of the respondent for appointment as a constable. The judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable, both, on facts as well as on law. Under the circumstances, the same is accordingly quashed and set aside. It is held that the candidature of the respondent-original writ petitioner for the post of constable had been rightly rejected by the appropriate authority. [Para 9][706-F-G]
Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471 : [2016]
7 SCR 445; Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India (2010) 14 SCC 103 : [2010] 13 SCR 1076; State of A.P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu (2005) 2 SCC 746 : [2005] 1 SCR 1147; Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal (2013) 9 SCC 363 : [2013] 8 SCR 471; Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P. (2012) 8 SCC 748 : [2012] 6 SCR 1047; State of M.P. v. Abhijit Singh Pawar (2018)
18 SCC 733 : [2018] 13 SCR 1133; Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited v. Anil Kanwariya (2021) 10 SCC 136 – relied on.
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.