Honble PATIL, CJ.–A Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 27.10.1998 passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 893/98 referred the following questions to a Larger Bench for consideration and decisions:-

``(i) Whether the fact that a candidate was prosecuted or subjected to investigation on a criminal charge is a material fact, suppression of which would entitle an employer to deny employment to a candidate on that ground?

(ii) Whether the ultimate acquittal of a candidate who was prosecuted on a criminal charge would condone or wash out the consequences of suppression of the fact that he was prosecuted?

(iii) Whether the suppression of the material fact would not by itself disentitle a candidate from being appointed in service?

(2). Hence, this appeal and other connected appeals have come up before us sitting in the Full Bench.

(3). Since the facts are similar in all these appeals and common questions arise for consideration, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The facts to the extent they are relevant for answering the reference are taken from D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 893/98.

(4). The appellant had applied for the post of Constable in the State Police Service, in response to the Notification dated 16.9.1997 inviting applications for recruitment to the posts of Police Constables. He was successful in the written examination and the Physical Efficiency Test. Thereafter, he was called upon to submit the original documents in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Churu. He accordingly, submitted the documents on 19.2.1998. However, he was not given appointment order. On enquiry, he was informed that he was not giving appointment order as he had suppressed the information that an FIR was lodged against him for the offence under sections 323 and 341 IPC and that he had not disclosed this fact in his application form. Thus, he was denied employment on the ground of suppression of material information in his application form. In this situation, the appellant filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2247/98 seeking direction to the respondents to provide appointment to him on the post of Constable from the date from which his juniors had been given appointment. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the order dated 27.7.1998 following his judgment delivered in similar case of Girdhari Singh vs. Inspector General & Ors.(1). The learned Single Judge was of the view that the State was within its right to deny employment to the appellant on the ground of concealment of information that a criminal case was lodged against him and that is would be immaterial whether the prosecution resulted in acquittal. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, this appeal is filed.

(5). The Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 27.10.1998 agreed with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, but in view of the two other decisions of the different Division Benches of this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Khalid Ahmed (2), and State of Rajasthan vs. Rajendra Singh (3), taking a contrary view, while admitting the appeal, referred the questions aforementioned, to a Larger Bench for decision.

(6). The learned counsel for the appellants contended that there was no deliberate suppression or concealment of any material information by the appellants while submitting their application forms, pursuant to the Notification dated 16.9.1997; when there was no deliberate suppression or concealment of material information, the learned Single Judge ought to have granted relief to the appellants; the subsequent acquittal in criminal case ought to have been taken into consideration and the appointment ought to have been given; the authority should have examined that the offences said to have been committed by the appellants did not relate to moral turpitude; and that an opportunity ought to have been given before refusing appointment to the appellants. In support of these submissions, the learned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document