1. Candidate for public employment concealed pending criminal proceedings in application form but voluntarily disclosed the omission before the cancellation of candidature. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 569
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S.Anand : S.R.Babu
Commissioner Of Police, Delhi
Versus
Dhaval Singh
Case No. : 2537 of 1998
Date of Decision : 5/1/98
An administrative order cancelling a candidate's candidature for concealing material facts is invalid if the authority fails to consider a voluntary disclosure of the omission made by the candidate prior to the issuance of the cancellation order.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Public Employment - Concealment of material fact in application form - Voluntary disclosure of inadvertent omission prior to cancellation of candidature - Order passed without considering the disclosure - Lack of application of mind - Cancellation of candidature held unsustainable. (Para 5)
(B) Distinguishing precedents - Where a candidate corrects an inadvertent mistake in the application form before the cancellation of candidature, such a case is distinguishable from instances where no such correction is made at any stage. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
A candidate applying for the post of Constable failed to mention a pending criminal case in the relevant column of the application form. Before any appointment order was issued, the candidate voluntarily informed the authorities via letter that the omission was inadvertent and due to lack of knowledge. Upon police verification, the authorities discovered the pending criminal case and cancelled the candidature without taking note of the candidate's prior voluntary disclosure. The candidate was subsequently acquitted in the said criminal case.
Findings of Court:
The cancellation of the candidature was without proper application of mind as the competent authority failed to consider the voluntary communication sent by the candidate to cure the defect in the application form before passing the order.
Issues: Whether the cancellation of a candidate's candidature for concealing a pending criminal case is valid when the candidate had voluntarily disclosed the omission to the authorities before the cancellation order was passed.
Ratio Decidendi: An administrative authority is obligated to consider all relevant material, including voluntary disclosures made by a candidate to correct an inadvertent mistake in an application form, before passing an order of cancellation. Failure to apply the mind to such communications renders the cancellation order unsustainable.
Result: Appeal fails and is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether concealment of a pending criminal case justifies cancellation of candidature despite voluntary disclosure of the mistake prior to the cancellation order. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 )
3. Cancellation of candidature without considering a voluntary disclosure of an inadvertent mistake constitutes a failure to apply mind to relevant material. (Para 5 )
4. An order cancelling candidature for concealment of facts is invalid if the authority fails to consider a voluntary correction made prior to the order. (Para 5 )
5. Appeal dismissed; order of the tribunal upholding the reinstatement of the respondent is affirmed. (Para 7 )
6. Does voluntary disclosure of a mistake in an application form before the cancellation of candidature affect the validity of the cancellation?
Yes. If a candidate voluntarily informs the authority of an inadvertent omission before the cancellation order is passed, the authority must consider this communication. Failure to do so renders the cancellation order an instance of non-application of mind. (Para 5 )
7. How does the timing of the disclosure of a criminal case affect the decision to cancel candidature?
Disclosure made voluntarily before the cancellation of candidature, and specifically before acquittal, is a material factor that the competent authority must evaluate before deciding to cancel the candidature. (Para 5 )
8. When is a precedent regarding concealment of material facts in employment applications distinguishable?
A precedent is distinguishable if the candidate in the current case made a voluntary correction of the omission prior to the cancellation of candidature, whereas the candidate in the precedent did not make any such correction. (Para 6 )
JUDGMENT
A.S.ANAND, J.
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3) BRIEF facts which are necessary for deciding this appeal are: that the respondent while seeking post of a Constable during the special recruitment drive is alleged to have concealed from mentioning in the Application Form, against the relevant column, that there was a criminal case pending against him. He had put a cross-mark in the relevant column. The Application Form was submitted by him on 21/27/8/1995. He was provisionally selected after passing the written test, physical endurance test and was interviewed, pending verification of his characteR.However, before any order of appointment could be issued in his favour, he, realising the mistake, wrote letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 15/11/1995 in which he, inter alia, stated:
"I am to state that I have appeared in the special recruitment held at Moradabad, U.P. on 21/8/1995 against Roll No. 1457 and declared successful. I have also gone through the medical examination and declared fit for the post of Constable (Exe.). I have to point out here that at the time of submission of Application Form I have inadvertently not mentioned the criminal case pending against me in the appropriate column. This has been done due to lack of knowledge. I may be excused for the above lapse and this application may be treated as an information from my side."
(4) IT appears that in the meanwhile, the appellant had sought police verification on the conduct and character of the respondent. On verification, the Department came to know that a case being FIR no. 1 of 1993 under Sections 147/342/327/504 Indian Penal Code was registered against the respondent at Police Station Agotta, District BulandshahR.On the ground that the respondent had concealed a material fact from the Application Form which he had filled in, his candidature was cancelled on 20/11/1995. In the meanwhile, the respondent was acquitted in the said criminal case by the trial court vide judgment dated 8/12/1995. On being so acquitted, the respondent filed a representation before the Commissioner of Police for reconsideration of his case but that representation was turned down. The respondent, thereupon, filed an original application before the central Administrative tribunal. Vide order dated 22/11/1996, the original application was allowed by the tribunal. Both the orders of cancellation of candidature and the rejection of the representation were set aside and the Tribunal directed the appellants to consider offering appointment to the respondent within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Aggrieved by the order of the tribunal, the appellant filed an Special Leave Petition in this Court in April 1997. On 7/7/1997, the court was informed that because of the order of the tribunal, the respondent had been reinstated in service.
(5) THAT there was an omission on the part of the respondent to give information against the relevant column in the Application Form about the pendency of the criminal case, is not in dispute. The respondent, however, voluntarily conveyed it on 15-11-1995 to the appellant that he had inadvertently failed to mention in the appropriate column regarding the pendency of the criminal case against him and that his letter may be treated as "information". Despite receipt of this communication, the candidature of the respondent was cancelled. A perusal of the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police cancelling the candidature on 20/11/1995 shows that the information conveyed by the respondent on 15/11/1995 was not taken note of. It was obligatory on the part of the appellant to have considered that application and apply its mind to the stand of the respondent that he had made an inadvertent mistake before passing the ordeR.That, however, was not done. It is not as if information was given by the respondent regarding the inadvertent mistake
