1. Selection for public service — Non-disclosure of prior criminal case involvement despite acquittal — Dispute over suppression of material facts in the verification form. (Para 3 , 6 , 9 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1078
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
The Director General of Police Tamilnadu, Mylapore - Appellant
Versus
J. Raghunees - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1183 of 2012
Decided On : 20-10-2023
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Appointment – Candidate is obliged to give correct information as to his conviction, acquittal or arrest or pendency of criminal case and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information – Wrong information amounts to the suppression of correct information.
Headnote:
Service Law – Appointment – Post of Police Constable – Respondent was involved in a criminal case but had been acquitted therefrom – It cannot be said that respondent was not concerned with any criminal case – He ought to have disclosed correct position that he was involved in a criminal case but had been acquitted – Wrong information amounts to the suppression of correct information – His honourable acquittal or acquittal by giving benefit of doubt is not material and relevant but what is relevant is full and complete disclosure of information regarding his involvement in a criminal case which has been suppressed by him – Candidate is obliged to give correct information as to his conviction, acquittal or arrest or pendency of criminal case and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information – Even if truthful declaration is made by him, he would not be entitled to appointment as a matter of right and employer still has right to consider his antecedents – Respondent cannot escape guilt of suppressing material information – Respondent was a candidate for recruitment to a disciplined force – Non-disclosure of information of his involvement in criminal case and subsequent acquittal therefrom cast serious doubt upon his character and antecedents which is sufficient enough to disentitle him from employment – Impugned judgment and order set aside. [Rule 14(b) of Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules 1978] (Paras 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Issue which has given rise to this appeal is that whether respondent is guilty of suppression of material fact with regard to his involvement in criminal case so as to disentitle him to employment.
Findings of Court:
In view of facts and circumstances, judgment and order of Division Bench passed in writ appeal cannot be sustained in law and is hereby set aside restoring that of writ court.
Result : Appeal allowed and Writ Petition dismissed.
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.323, S.324, S.341, S.506(ii)
TAMIL NADU SPECIAL POLICE SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES: R.14(b)
TAMIL NADU SPECIAL POLICE SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES: R.14(b)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether non-disclosure of a concluded criminal case resulting in acquittal constitutes willful suppression of material facts disentitling a candidate from employment. (Para 5 , 7 )
3. Verification forms requiring disclosure of criminal involvement are unequivocal; failure to disclose involvement, regardless of the acquittal's nature, constitutes suppression of material information. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 16 )
4. Candidates must provide truthful disclosure of all criminal involvements; suppression of such material facts, especially for disciplined forces, justifies denial of employment. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
5. Appeal allowed — Judgment of the Division Bench set aside — Order of the Single Judge restored — Writ petition dismissed. (Para 17 , 18 )
6. Does an acquittal in a criminal case exempt a candidate from disclosing the involvement in a verification form?
No. If the verification form asks whether the candidate has ever been concerned in any criminal case, the candidate must disclose the involvement regardless of the result or status of the case. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 )
7. What is the legal position regarding the disclosure of concluded criminal cases for employment?
Information regarding conviction, acquittal, arrest, or pendency of criminal cases must be true without suppression. Even with a truthful declaration of a concluded case, the employer retains the right to consider antecedents and may refuse appointment. (Para 14 , 15 )
8. Does the nature of the acquittal affect the requirement of disclosure in employment verification?
No. The nature of the acquittal—whether honorable or based on benefit of doubt—is not material; the core requirement is the full and complete disclosure of the involvement in the criminal case. (Para 4 , 13 )
9. How does non-disclosure of criminal antecedents impact recruitment into a disciplined force?
Non-disclosure of involvement in a criminal case, even if followed by acquittal, casts serious doubt upon the candidate's character and antecedents, which is sufficient to disentitle them from employment in a disciplined force. (Para 16 )
JUDGMENT :
Pankaj Mithal, J.
1. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai has preferred this appeal against the final judgment and order dated 24.04.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court allowing writ appeal no. 1487 of 2008 filed by the respondent, J. Raghunees, after setting aside the judgment and order of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.
2. In short, the judgment and order of the Division Bench is of reversal. The order dismissing the writ petition of the respondent was set aside in the writ appeal by the Division Bench and the writ petition was ultimately allowed.
3. The respondent was selected for the post of Grade-II Constable after he qualified the written test. Upon his selection, his antecedents were inquired into and in that connection an exercise for verification of his character and other antecedents was undertaken. In the discreet inquiry conducted for the purpose of the aforesaid verification, it was revealed that the respondent was involved in a criminal case registered as case crime no. 392 of 1997 for offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 506(II) of Indian Penal Code. The respondent was the third accused in the said case. He was acquitted in the said case by the Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 19.02.2001 but these facts were not disclosed by him.
4. Though there is some controversy as to the nature of the aforesaid acquittal i.e., whether it was an honorable acquittal or an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt but the same is not very material for us in the present appeal. Nonetheless, it may be pertinent to note that the writ court recorded a finding upon consideration of the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.02.2001 that the charges were not proved against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt and the acquittal of the respondent was not strictly on the basis of doubt but because of want of evidence and as such it was an honorable acquittal. Notwithstanding as to whether the respondent was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt or was acquitted honorably, the issue before us is quite different and does not depend upon the nature of the acquittal.
5. The issue which has given rise to this appeal is that whether the respondent is guilty of suppression of material fact with regard to his involvement in the above criminal case so as to disentitle him to employment.
6. The authorities vide order dated 09.11.2004 held that the respondent was not entitled to appointment as he was guilty of suppressing material fact by not stating about his involvement in the criminal case while filling up column 15 of the attestation form.
7. The above order was challenged by the respondent by means of a writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed but in writ appeal the judgment and order of the Learned Single Judge was set aside and the writ appeal was allowed on the reasoning that the respondent was acquitted from the criminal case much before the verification and therefore, the respondent rightly thinking that his involvement in the criminal case is of no relevance bona fidely failed to mention about the same and as such suppression of this information cannot be considered to be willful or intentional so as to deprive him of service pursuant to his selection.
8. The TAMIL NADU SPECIAL POLICE SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES , 1978 provides for the eligibility criteria for the recruitment and appointment in the State Police Service. It, inter alia, provides that no person shall be eligible for the appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service. For the sake of convenience, the relevant Rule 14(b) is reproduced below :
“Extract of Rule 14(b) of TAMIL NADU SPECIAL POLICE SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES 1978
14(b) No person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority.
(i) that he is of sound health, active habits and free from any bo
