Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Ravindra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5902 of 2012
Decided On : 22-02-2024
non-disclosure - employment - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 324, 352, 504 - The court analyzed the applicable precedents and concluded that non-disclosure of a criminal case, which ended in acquittal, is not fatal for the candidate's employment. The court emphasized that each case will depend on the facts and circumstances, and a holistic view based on objective criteria should be taken, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.
Fact of the Case:
Ravindra Kumar applied for the post of Constable with an unblemished record. He was embroiled in a criminal case five days after submitting the application, but was acquitted before submitting an affidavit disclosing criminal antecedents. His selection was later cancelled due to the non-disclosure of the criminal case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the non-disclosure of the criminal case, which ended in acquittal, was not fatal for the appellant's employment. It emphasized that the cancellation of selection was neither fair nor reasonable, and directed the respondents to appoint the appellant in service on the post of Constable.
Issues: The issues included whether the State was justified in cancelling the selection of the appellant and to what relief the appellant was entitled to.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that non-disclosure of a criminal case, which ended in acquittal, should not be deemed fatal for employment. It emphasized that each case will depend on the facts and circumstances, and a holistic view based on objective criteria should be taken.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the cancellation of selection was set aside, and the respondents were directed to appoint the appellant in service on the post of Constable. The appellant was entitled to all notional benefits, including pay, seniority, and other consequential benefits.
Key Points: - The court held that non-disclosure of a criminal case ending in acquittal should not be automatically fatal to employment; decisions depend on facts and objective criteria. (!) (!) (!) - Avtar Singh (Supra) principles: employer must act reasonably, with objective criteria, considering relevant aspects before canceling candidature or terminating service. (!) (!) (!) - The decision to cancel in this case (12.04.2005) was found not fair or reasonable; reinstatement with notional benefits ordered. (!) (!) (!) - The interpretation of Clause 9 and verification form requires a case-specific, holistic view rather than a rigid rule; suppression of material information may be condoned in trivial cases but may justify cancellation in non-trivial cases. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Recent precedents cited (Pawan Kumar, Ram Kumar, Sandeep Kumar, Avtar Singh) support reintegration or conditional consideration based on facts. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The judgment emphasizes that the yardstick depends on the post, duties, and circumstances; no one-size-fits-all rule. (!) (!) - The appellant is entitled to reinstatement and not to back wages, but with all notional benefits and seniority. (!) - The form of verification and character rules require careful, specific attestation; not all undisclosed facts automatically disqualify. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
K.V. VISWANATHAN, J.
1. The vexed question is back again. Is it a hard and fast and a cut and dried rule that, in all circumstances, non-disclosure of a criminal case (in which the candidate is acquitted) in the verification form is fatal for the candidate’s employment? We think not and it ought not to be so too. Fortunately, we have a judicial chorus supporting our view. Each case will turn on the special facts and circumstances. We have endeavoured to analyse the applicable precedents and have followed those line of cases, which have a striking similarity to the facts at hand.
Facts of the case:
2. Ravindra Kumar (the appellant), on 12.02.2004, applied for the post of Constable. His record was unblemished. Five days after submitting the application, i.e. on 17.02.2004, he was embroiled in a criminal case for offences punishable under Sections 324, 352 and 504 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), which he claims was a false case. He cleared the written exam and the interview. Earlier he had cleared the physical efficiency test too.
3. In the meantime, the criminal case took an interesting turn as by the judgment dated 13.09.2004, the appellant was acquitted. At that criminal trial, the informant PW-1 Srikant, who according to the prosecution, was allegedly injured in the incident on account of injuries allegedly inflicted by the appellant and by Vijendra, Ishwar Dayal and Radhey Shyam, turned hostile. The son of the informant, PW-2 Ram Gulam with whom according to the prosecution, the accused party was quarreling, till PW-1 Srikant intervened and allegedly became subject to physical attack, also turned hostile. Ram Gulam clearly deposed that he could not identify any of the accused. The witnesses even stated that the Daroga Ji (Station House Officer) did not record their statement. In the cross-examination, they also stated that there was a big crowd at the occurrence and as such they could not identify the assailants. Insofar as Section 504 IPC was concerned which deals with intentional insult with the intent to provoke breach of peace, both the parties have filed a compromise memo, which was accepted by the Court. In view of the above, they were acquitted of all the charges.
4. The Appellant, after being selected, was required to submit an Affidavit disclosing criminal antecedents, if any. The Appellant submitted the affidavit on 30.10.2004, wherein, he inter-alia, stated that no criminal case, cognizable or noncognizable, has ever been registered against him.
5. Thereafter, he was asked to report for training and when he reported, he was not sent for training on the ground that there was a character verification pending. Subsequently, on 12.04.2005, he was given the following letter cancelling his selection:
It is clear from the above that you have concealed the above offence and filed false affidavit. Therefore, due to producing false affidavit, your selection on the post of Recruit Constable in PAC is hereby cancelled.”
6. The case of the Department was that, under Clause 9 of the recruitment notification dated 20.01.2004, if any fact is concealed in the affidavit by the candidate, his candidature is liable for cancellation. Clause 9, being relevant, is extracted herein-below:
Non-disclosure of minor criminal involvement does not automatically disqualify a candidate; suitability must be assessed holistically by the appointing authority.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of full disclosure of criminal cases in the Attestation Form and the employer's discretion in considering antecedents for employme....
Non-disclosure of a past minor criminal case does not automatically justify termination of employment; each case must be evaluated on its specific facts and circumstances.
Suppression of material facts regarding pending criminal cases has a clear bearing on the character, conduct, and antecedents of the employee, and can lead to termination of services.
Suppressing minor criminal information does not automatically disqualify candidates for government service; context and fairness must guide the decision-making process.
The cancellation of a candidate's selection based solely on the registration of a criminal case, without evidence of complicity, is unjustified and reflects a lack of proper consideration of the fact....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
