Employers have the discretion to terminate services based on the suppression of material information by an employee, and they can consider the antecedents of a candidate and decline appointment even upon acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

2. Petitioner applied for the post of Constable (Civil Police) against an advertisement issued in 2013, by the second respondent-U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow. Petitioner was declared successful in physical and medical examination, however, he was not sent for training alongwith similarly situated candidates. On verification of the antecedent of the petitioner, it was informed by the District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, that the following cases are registered against the petitioner:

3. On specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the last date for submission of the application form for the post in 2012, admittedly, all the criminal cases against the petitioner was pending and it was in the knowledge of the petitioner, however, the said information was suppressed and not disclosed in the relevant column of the form. The status of the cases is of a later date.

4. By the instant writ petition, petitioner has raised challenge to the orders dated 08.08.2016 and 01.08.2017, passed by the third respondent-District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, whereby, the representation of the petitioner, seeking a direction to the District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, to take steps for submission of the verification report, has been disposed of forwarding the antecedents of the petitioner to the competent authority. A further prayer has been made that a direction be issued to the State-respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for training, pursuant to the Government Order dated 28.04.1958.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the writ petition to prayer clause- (i) as considerable time has since lapsed and the petitioner, at this stage, cannot be sent for training. In other words petitioner seeks quashing of the antecedents forwarded by the District Magistrate to the employer.

6. It is not being disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had suppressed the criminal cases pending against him on the last date of submission of the application form for the post. The criminal cases noted herein above are serious offences and in any case, it is the discretion of the employer as to whether to offer appointment to the petitioner having regard to the pending criminal cases.

7. In the case of Jainendra Singhv. State of U.P., (2012) 8 SCC 748, in para 29.4, Supreme Court has observed and held that “a candidate having suppressed material information and/ or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service and the employer, having regard to the nature of employment as well as other aspects, has the discretion to terminate his services. In para 29.6, it is further observed that the person who suppressed the material information and/or gives false information cannot claim any right for appointment or continuity in service. In para 29.7, it is observed and held that “the standard expected of a person intended to serve in uniformed service is quite distinct from other services and, therefore, any deliberate statement or omission regarding a vital information can be seriously viewed and the ultimate decision of the appointing authority cannot be faulted.”

8. In the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limite