Employers must consider the factum of acquittal and special circumstances of the case when making employment decisions based on criminal antecedents.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 5th April, 2016, whereby the appointment of the petitioner for the post of Constable in the Railway Protection Force/ Eastern Railway had been forfeited, inter alia, on the ground of non-disclosure of a pending police case in the attestation form dated 11th June, 2014 submitted during the viva voce. The petitioner had participated in a recruitment process vide Employment Notice No. 01/2011, issued by the Railway Protection Force/ Eastern Railway for the post of Constable. Having become successful, the petitioner was called for viva-voce on 13th June, 2014 and in terms of the call letter issued by the Railway Protection Force of even date the petitioner had duly appeared before the authorities. Having succeeded in the viva voce, the petitioner was called for training of Constable Recruits in Railway Protection Force vide notice dated 15th October, 2014 and was required to report to the Railway Protection Force Training Centre, Domohani, Mainagudi, New Jalpaiguri, West Bengal along with other successful candidates. It is the petitioner’s case that he had successfully completed the training and was waiting for his posting orders when he received a discharge letter dated 5th April, 2016, thereby, discharging the him from enlistment for the post of Constable in Railway Protection Force/ Eastern Railway, inter alia, on the ground of providing false declaration in the attestation form dated 11th June, 2014. After receipt of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner had made a representation on 25th April, 2016 which was not adhered to. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed on 20th May, 2016.

2. Mr. Majumder, learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that the respondents had mechanically dismissed the petitioner from service without taking note of the order of acquittal passed in the criminal case.

3. By drawing attention of this Court to the judgment and order dated 29th September, 2015, passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranaghat, submits that since, the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused persons had committed any offence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was, inter alia, pleased to conclude that the accused persons are not guilty of the charges levelled against them. The petitioner was only a co-accused and in connection with a false complaint lodged against the petitioner regarding a dispute with his neighbor and on the basis of the aforesaid a criminal case was proceeded with.

4. By referring to the charges it is submitted that save and except the charge under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, other charges are of trivial nature. Admittedly, none of the charges, inter alia, including the charge under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code could be proved. The said charge under section 308 also turned out to be a false charge The petitioner had, in effect, been honorably acquitted. The dismissal of service of the petitioner amounts to violation of Articles 14,19(1)(g) and 21of the Constitution of India. The suppression/misrepresentation complained of against the petitioner should be treated to be a mere omission and nothing more. In support of the aforesaid contention, he has relied on the following judgments: -

(i) An unreported judgment delivered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Sukdeb Mandal v. Union of India & Ors. in WPA No. 28149 of 2015;

(ii) The unreported judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in FMA No. 1434 of 2022 arising out of WPA No. 28149 of 2015 in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Sri Sukdeb Mandal;

(iii) Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471;

(iv) Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in AIR 2018 SC 4895;

(v) Pawan Kumar v. Union of Inida & Anr., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 532,

(vi) State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Mitul Kumar Jana, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1070.

5. In the facts no