Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.
Biska Rohit Chandra – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana and another - Respondents
W.P.No.44735 of 2017
Decided on : 21-07-2023
SUPPRESSION OF INFORMATION - CRIMINAL CASE - SECTION 160 IPC - APPOINTMENT - POLICE DEPARTMENT - YOUNG AGE - TRIVIAL OFFENCE - CANCELLATION OF SELECTION - JUDICIAL REVIEW - ARTICLE 226 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: 1. Suppression of material information or false declaration in an application form for a public post is a serious matter, but it does not automatically lead to disqualification or termination of employment. 2. The employer must consider the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the suppression, and the impact on the suitability of the candidate for the post. 3. In the case of young offenders, courts may be more lenient, considering their age and the possibility of rehabilitation. 4. The employer's decision must be reasonable and objective, based on a proper consideration of all relevant factors. 5. Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not directed against the decision itself, but against the decision-making process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a young man from a marginalized section of society, was selected for the post of Constable in the Police Department. However, his provisional selection was cancelled after it was discovered that he had been convicted of a trivial offence under Section 160 of the IPC (affray) when he was 21 years old. The petitioner had pleaded guilty to the offence and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100. He did not mention this conviction in his application form or attestation form for the Constable post.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's non-disclosure of his conviction was not deliberate and that the offence was trivial in nature. It also considered the petitioner's young age at the time of the offence and the fact that he had been selected for a post in the Police Department, which is a highly disciplined force. The court found that the respondents' decision to cancel the petitioner's selection was not reasonable or objective and that it violated the principles of natural justice.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's non-disclosure of his conviction was a material suppression of information. 2. Whether the offence was trivial in nature and whether the petitioner's young age at the time of the offence should be considered as mitigating factors. 3. Whether the respondents' decision to cancel the petitioner's selection was reasonable and objective.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, to hold that mere suppression of material information or false declaration does not automatically lead to disqualification or termination of employment. The court also held that the employer must consider the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the suppression, and the impact on the suitability of the candidate for the post. In the present case, the court found that the petitioner's non-disclosure was not deliberate, that the offence was trivial in nature, and that the petitioner's young age at the time of the offence should be considered as a mitigating factor. The court also found that the respondents' decision to cancel the petitioner's selection was not reasonable or objective and that it violated the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned show cause notice and consequential memorandum, and directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of SCTPC (AR) as per his selection.
ORDER:
This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners, wherein, the following prayer is made:
2. I have heard the submissions of Sri V.Raghunath, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.V.Rama Rao, learned Special Government Pleader representing the respondents and perused the record.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for the post of SCT PC (Civil/AR/Men and Women), pursuant to the notification, dated 31.12.2015 issued by the respondent No.2. The petitioner got through the written examination and physical test and he has been provisionally selected for the said post. However, during verification of the antecedents, the petitioner was found involved in a criminal case in Crime No.216 of 2014 registered for the offence under Section 160 r/w 34 of IPC of Tukaramgate police station and he was convicted of the said offence and was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.100/- by the Court concerned. Therefore, the respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice, dated 06.05.2017, to the petitioner calling upon to show cause as to why his provisional selection to the post of SCT PC (AR) should not be cancelled as per Rules. The petitioner submitted explanation to the said show cause notice on 10.05.2017 stating that he had no knowledge that he was convicted in the subject criminal case, and as such, he could not state the same in the attestation form and accordingly, requested the respondent No.2 to pardon the mistake committed by him in filling the attestation form. However, the respondents have issued a memorandum in RC.No.71/Recruitment/Genl.1/2007, dated 19.08.2017, cancelling the provisional selection of the petitioner on the ground that he has suppressed the fact of his involvement in criminal case in both online application and attestation form. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation on 23.11.2017 requesting the respondents to forgive his mistake, but however, there is no response from the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition with the prayer stated supra.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the offence under which the petitioner was convicted is a petty offence. Due to lack of proper knowledge and legal complications, the petitioner, at the advise of the elders, pleaded guilty in the said crime and he was imposed with a fine of Rs.100/-. In fact, the petitioner was innocent and he was no way concerned with the alleged offence. Further, merely because of conviction in an offence which ended in imposing of fine of Rs.100/-, the petitioner cannot be denied appointment which is nothing but gross violation of rule of law, discriminatory and also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was leading his respectable life and he is passionate to enter into police department. Though the petit
The employer's decision to cancel the petitioner's selection was not reasonable or objective and that it violated the principles of natural justice.
Suppression of material facts regarding pending criminal cases has a clear bearing on the character, conduct, and antecedents of the employee, and can lead to termination of services.
Suppression of material information in employment forms can justify cancellation of candidature, and subsequent acquittal may not warrant consideration for selection/appointment, especially in cases ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of full disclosure of criminal cases in the Attestation Form and the employer's discretion in considering antecedents for employme....
Point of Law : What is the effect of suppression of involvement/acquittal in the criminal case by the petitioner. The offences as discussed supra are trivial and compoundable in nature. Even if invol....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
