Suppressing minor criminal information does not automatically disqualify candidates for government service; context and fairness must guide the decision-making process.

ORDER

Per Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) :

The present OA has been filed by the applicant Mr. Sonu Bhati, under Section 19 of the AT Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs :-

“(a) set aside the orders dated 19.09.2018 and 12.12.2018 passed by the respondents;

b) direct the respondents to consider for the appointment of the applicant to the post of constable.”

2. The applicant an aspirant for the post of Constable had applied in response to the notification issued by the respondents for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male. The recruitment process was conducted and he was declared successful in both written and physical tests.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that on 08.03.2018 in column 11 of the Verification Form the applicant stated that no criminal cases were filed against him and no FIR was lodged against him. However, he was served with a show cause notice dated 09.07.2018 regarding two criminal cases against him vide FIR Nos. 352/2016 u/s. 110 CrPC and 334/2016 u/s. 147, 323, 506 of IPC. Later, on 14.07.2018, it was found that the proceedings of FIR No. 352/2016 u/s 110 CrPC were closed. The applicant responded to the said show cause notice on 06.08.2018 stating that he was unaware of the said cases at the relevant time and thus had bonafidely stated that no Criminal Cases and FIRs are pending against him.

Learned counsel further stated that again on 27.08.2018 a show case notice was issued to the applicant directing him to appear before the Deputy Commissioner. However, on 05.09.2018 the Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar acquitted the applicant along with other co-accused as they were found to be innocent and the case was found to be false. The respondents revoked the candidature of the applicant over antecedents in two criminal cases, even after his acquittal. Aggrieved, the applicant filed two representations dated 04.10.2018 and 06.12.2008 in this regard which were rejected by the respondents on 12.12.2018 rejecting his candidature on the ground of concealment of facts regarding the pendency of the criminal case. Hence, the instant OA has been filed.

3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel of the applicant placed on record a compilation of judgments relied upon by him. The same are dealt with as under :-

i) Commissioner of Police and others vs. Sandeep Kumar in (2011) 4 SCC 644 dated 17.03.2011. Paras 11, 12 and 13 of the said judgment are reproduced below :-

“11. As already observed above, youth often commits indiscretions, which Hire often condoned.

12. It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Sections 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder. dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter.

13. For the reasons given above, this appeal has no force and it is dismissed. No costs.”

ii) Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India and Another (2023) 12 SCC 317 . Para 13 of the said judgment is quoted below :-

“13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and t