The importance of providing true information to the employer and the employer's right to reject candidature based on false information or suppression of material facts.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - Through this writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 20.09.2019 (Annexure P4) rejecting the application for appointment as Constable in Haryana Police after he was selected. At the outset, it must be noticed that the petitioner applied on 24.09.2015 pursuant to recruitment notice published on 19.07.2015. The petitioner was recommended to be appointed, however, on verification of his character and antecedents, it was found that the petitioner was involved in FIR No. 329 dated 12.04.2012, registered under Section 419 & 420 IPC at Police Station Chandani Bagh, District Panipat. Thus, the competent authority has passed a detailed order on 20.09.2019 correctness whereof has been challenged in the writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment dated 09.12.2015, therefore, he is entitled to appointment in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in The State of Haryana and Others v. Pawan Kumar (Letters Patent Appeal No. 1059 of 2015, decided on 26.05.2016).

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/State has submitted that the petitioner, while filing the application, suppressed the material information. He drew attention of the Court to a copy of application on 24.09.2015 (Annexure R1). He submitted that the petitioner did not make correct disclosure and rather submitted false information. He further submitted that in view of the judgment passed by a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court cannot be relied upon. He further drew attention of the court to the amendment brought in, by the State of Haryana in Rule 12.18 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to the State of Haryana), requiring the candidates to make a disclosure failing which non-disclosure would lead to outright disqualification.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance, perused the paper-book. At the outset, it is important to note that there were various judgments passed by the Supreme Court and the High Courts on the subject. Taking note of the conflict of opinion in the judgments passed by the Benches of equal strength, the matter was referred to a Larger Bench. In Avtar Singh (supra), the Larger Bench has held as under:-

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

(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.

(2) While passing 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.

(3) The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

(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 recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted : -

(a) 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 disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by cond