IMPORTANT POINT
Appointment – Even in a case where information regarding pending criminal case is truthfully furnished and on acquittal therein, employer has discretion to consider antecedents while issuing letter of appointment.

JUDGMENT

J.K. Maheshwari, J.

This appeal arises out of the judgement of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, dated 16.12.2010, passed in WPST No. 600 of 2010 filed by respondent Mitul Kumar Jana. The High Court by the said judgment allowed the writ and set-aside the order dated 23.11.2010 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (for short "Tribunal") and directed the appellant no. 2, i.e., the Superintendent of Police to appoint the respondent as constable in the West Bengal police force.

2. Succinctly stated, facts of this case are that the respondent appeared before appellant no. 2 - Superintendent of Police, South 24 Parganas, for measurement, physical efficiency test and for interview on 06.09.2008, 09.09.2008 and 10.09.2008 respectively. He was declared fit in the said selection, and placed in the merit list of the constables in the West Bengal Police Force. Pursuant thereto, respondent was supplied with the Police Verification Roll and asked to fill-up the same in his own handwriting. He deposited the same with the appointing authority within the time schedule. As per the police verification report sent by the local Police Station, it was alleged that the respondent was implicated in a criminal case bearing Case No. 124 of 2007, dated 03.08.2007, registered at Kakdwip Police Station. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 31.08.2007, whereafter, the trial was pending at the time of his interview and physical test. The police report further indicated that the respondent was granted anticipatory bail on 16.08.2007 and regular bail on 27.08.2007.

3. Upon scrutinizing the said verification form, the authority formed an opinion that the respondent had suppressed material information regarding his involvement in a pending criminal case. The verification roll submitted by the respondent was sent to the Intelligence Branch, West Bengal for opinion. Vide Memo no. 3875/S - 503-08/S.A. - II/VR, dated 09.02.2009, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Intelligence Branch had informed that the respondent has supressed the fact of his involvement in a criminal case and as the case against the respondent is sub-judice, no opinion for his suitability could be given at this stage. In the given facts, order of appointment was not issued by the appellant. However, the respondent filed Original Application No. 343 of 2010 before the Tribunal seeking directions to issue the letter of appointment on account of his selection for the post of constable in the West Bengal Police Force. The Authorities filed their reply and contended that the respondent was involved in a criminal case and despite having knowledge of the same, he had not disclosed the same in the verification roll and suppressed the information about the pending criminal case, hence, he is not suitable for the appointment.

4. The Tribunal vide order dated 23.11.2010, disposed-off the Original Application and was of the opinion that it is not a case of suppression of information by the respondent. It was said that, without his acquittal in the pending criminal case, direction to issue the letter of appointment cannot be recommended and observed that, in case the respondent is acquitted, his case may be considered by the appellant as per rules.

5. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred Writ Petition before the High Court at Calcutta and prayed for appropriate directions. The Court in the impugned judgement referred to column no. 12 of the verification roll and opined that the information sought in the said column was of arrest, detention and conviction. As per details asked in the said column, information regarding pending criminal case was not required to be furnished. Therefore, the High Court concurred with the finding of the Tribunal on the issue of suppression of material information and was of the opinion that because the respondent has not yet been held guilty in the criminal case by the competent Court, therefore, presumption of innocence in his favour st