Non-disclosure of trivial criminal offenses may not justify termination in public employment, considering the nature of the position and socioeconomic background of the candidate.

JUDGMENT :

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, C.J.

The Petitioner, Vikash hails from a village in Sonbhadra (Uttar Pradesh), and he is a matriculant. His family appears to be engaged in a small farm in his native village. Like any village youth, he was quite ambitious to enter public service. He applied for the post of Constable (Washerman) in the service of Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), an armed force of the Union Government. This application was in the year 2020. At that time, he was only twenty-one (21) years old. He was selected in the vacancy of Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category. The appointment order shows that the appointment was purely temporary but likely to continue. His probation was for a period of two (02) years from the date of appointment. He was offered an appointment in the State of Sikkim. Accordingly, he reported and joined duty as a Constable (Washerman) at 36th Bn SSB, Geyzing on 05.03.2024.

[2] The Petitioner approached this Court, challenging the order passed by the official Respondent on 17.08.2024 terminating his service. He had been terminated with effect from 17.08.2024 for the reason that he had suppressed involvement in two crimes while submitting declaration in the SSB recruitment form and also while giving undertaking at the time of joining SSB as a Constable.

[3] There is hardly any dispute about the fact that the Petitioner was involved in two crimes and those crimes were not disclosed while submitting application for recruitment and submitting response to verification at the time of joining.

[4] The following were the crimes registered against him:

(i) FIR No. 56/2017 for offence under Sections 380/457 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 registered by police station Chopan. The police filed the report. In the official report it is stated that the complaint against the accused was false after investigation. The final report was accepted by the Court.

(ii) The crimes registered against the Petitioner along with his brothers in the year 2020 was registered as FIR No. 252/2020 for offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC on 19.09.2020. The offences were compoundable. The complainant and Petitioner and others amicably settled the matter on 05.10.2023. Accordingly, the case resulted in the acquittal of the Petitioner, upon the Court accepting a compromise.

[5] There can be little dispute as to the reasons for non-disclosure of the first crime as Petitioner had no chance to know about the pendency of such a case as police on investigation found that the complaint itself was false. The question then arises how far non-disclosure of the second crime would have an impact on his employment.

[6] Two aspects arise for consideration in this matter. The first relates to a crime registered against the Petitioner in the year 2020 which ultimately ended in acquittal upon a compromise arrived at with the complainant. The second aspect concerns the alleged suppression of this case in application form as well as in the verification form.

[7] Over the years, through judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court and various High Courts, the legal position has been clarified that involvement in trivial offences, and the non-disclosure of such offences, may not necessarily have a bearing on public employment. In such circumstances, the employer is at liberty to ignore the suppression and condone the lapse as observed in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others , (2016) 8 SCC 471 .

[8] In matters of public employment, there exists no precise mechanism to assess the character of an individual except with reference to his