Employers have the right to consider antecedents and may terminate the service of an employee for wilful suppression of material information, especially in the context of seeking appointment as a Police Constable.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of the instant appeal, a challenge is made to the order impugned dated 10.04.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant herein, was dismissed.

2. Concisely noted, the factual matrix of the instant appeal dictates that the respondent-State issued an advertisement in the Year 2018, inviting applications for recruitment on the post of Constable. Thereafter, the appellant participated in the said recruitment process and was duly selected on the concerned post. However, pursuant to the appellant’s appointment, the fact of previous registration of an FIR and the consequential prosecution of the appellant, came into the knowledge of the respondent-State, which was wilfully and admittedly concealed by the appellant at the time of recruitment. Therefore, as result, the appellant vide order 08.03.2019, was removed from service by the respondent-State. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10776/2021 titled as Ranjeet Bishnoi vs. State of Rajasthan. However, the said petition came to be dismissed vide order impugned dated 10.04.2023.

3. In this background, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order impugned dated 10.04.2023 is passed in contravention of the settled position of the law and therefore, warrants interference of this Court. It is submitted that vide order dated 08.03.2019, the appellant was removed from service, while serving on the post of Constable, on the ground of concealment and suppression of the fact of lodging of an FIR against the appellant and his arrest in that matter. However, subsequently, the appellant came to be discharged from all charges by the concerned court on 06.02.2021. Therefore, as the appellant was acquitted, the impugned actions of the respondent-State in relieving the appellant from service, were unjustified and dehors the provisions of the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1989. Lastly, whilst praying for the quashing of the order impugned, learned counsel submitted that a reformatory approach should be adopted by the Courts while dealing with alike matters, as a person cannot be held accountable for a miscalculated action undertaken in their youth, as to err is to be human.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused through the record of the appeal.

5. The central grievance articulated by the appellant is that despite having been exonerated from the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant, the respondent-State released/discharged the appellant from service, on the ground of wilful and deliberate concealment of the appellant’s involvement in a criminal case and his arrest and prosecution in connection therewith, at the time of participation in the process of selection.

6. Having perused through the record of the instant appeal, the following admitted factual considerations have come to light, as noted herein-under:-

6.1 That FIR No. 312/2015 was registered against the appellant at Police Station Ashok Nagar, District Jaipur on 09.10.2015 for the offences under Sections 147, 149,341,283,188,332,353 and 427 of the India Penal Code and Section 3 of the PDPP Act.

6.2 That the appellant was arrested in the said criminal case and subsequently, was also charge-sheeted and as a consequence, faced trial before the concerned court.

6.3 That in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the respondent-State for appointment on the post of Constable, the appellant submitted his application form for participation in the said process. However, admittedly, the appellant suppressed/concealed the above material aspect qua the criminal case and trial, and the same were not brought into the notice of the appointing authority.

6.4 That in unattributable disregard of the same, the appointing authority offered appointment to the appellant vide order dated 12.10.2018 but subsequently, during police verification, the above said facts came into the notice of the St