IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that trivial criminal offenses should not disqualify candidates for public employment, emphasizing the need for objective assessment of character and circumstances surrounding past offenses.

JUDGMENT

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

O.P.(KAT)No.504/2024

The petitioner, who was advised by the Public Service Commission for appointment as a Police Driver, was not called for training alleging that he had indulged in certain criminal cases and thus his character and antecedents are not befitting to the said post. The petitioner challenged Annexure A9 communication in this regard by contending that the three criminal cases in which he was implicated had occurred as part of his student life activities at Mahatma Gandhi College, Thiruvananthapuram and the actual allegations made against him were only of a trifling nature.

2. He also contended that among the three cases, two cases were already over as he pleaded guilty to the charges and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,900/- each. In the third case, he was acquitted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, after a full-fledged trial by Annexure A4 judgment, on finding that none of the witnesses including the police officials were able to identify any of the accused persons. He also attempted to clarify that the Verification Roll which he had to submit before joining the service was in a bilingual proforma and the terms used in the Malayalam language were different from the requirements given in the English version. According to him, because of that confusion, he did not furnish the details of the two cases which were already disposed of on payment of a fine, though he provided the details of the other case.

3. The respondents contended that offences alleged against him are grave in nature and there is no justification for suppressing the relevant facts in the Verification Roll and thus he is not suitable to be appointed in the Police force. The State further contended that the Kerala Police constabulary being a disciplined and uniformed force, persons with unblemished character alone could be appointed therein. It is also contended that the terms used in the Verification Roll were specific and precise and hence the contention that it caused confusion is incorrect, especially when the petitioner is a graduate.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

5. The law has been settled by the Honourable Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others [ (2016) 8 SCC 471 ) as to the essential matters to be considered while rejecting the candidature of a person on account of his criminal antecedents. After considering a catena of decisions dealing with the propriety of appointing persons involved in criminal cases, the Apex Court set out the following guidelines for the compliance of the appointing authority when the candidate to be appointed has a criminal background.

“38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:

38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

38.2. While passing an order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.

38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted:

38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclose