Suppression Of Pending Criminal Cases Raises Concerns About Candidate's Integrity: Orissa HC Upholds Cancellation Of Employee's Appointment
The Orissa High Court has held that notwithstanding the result, suppression of pending criminal cases per se raises concerns about a candidate's integrity and after withholding such vital information, a person cannot claim an unfettered right to seek appointment.While denying relief to the petitioner aggrieved of cancellation of his candidature, Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held...
The Orissa High Court has held that notwithstanding the result, suppression of pending criminal cases per se raises concerns about a candidate's integrity and after withholding such vital information, a person cannot claim an unfettered right to seek appointment.
While denying relief to the petitioner aggrieved of cancellation of his candidature, Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held –
“A candidate who suppresses material information or provides false declarations does not possess an unfettered right to seek appointment. The suppression of criminal antecedents and failure to disclose pending FIRs has significant consequences, particularly for positions that demand trust and integrity. The impact of withholding such material information, including involvement in criminal cases, is within the employer's discretion to assess.”
Background
The petitioner being a Project Affected Person (PAP) of Neyveli Lignite Corporation India Limited (NLCIL) applied for the position of Junior Overman (Trainee) in the S.I. grade. After the written test, he was found eligible and accordingly, he proceeded to the document verification stage.
Pending the medical examination, the petitioner was informed about withdrawal of his candidature and cancellation of his selection for the aforesaid post. The above action was taken due to alleged violations of certain rules which required the candidates to disclose as to whether they had ever been convicted, detained, prosecuted, arrested, bound down, debarred or fined by any Court of law.
The NLCIL found that though three FIRs were pending against the petitioner, yet he suppressed the same. Therefore, it was constrained to cancel his candidature and annul his selection.
Being aggrieved by such action, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner contended that the question regarding Court convictions, detentions, prosecutions, etc., was vague and non-specific, as it referred only to directions by a “Court of law,” whereas he was arrested by the police, not convicted by the Court.
Therefore, he argued that the action taken by the opposite parties was harsh, disproportionate, and lacked due process. Further, he was not given a fair opportunity to explain the circumstances behind the FIRs or clarify the allegations and no independent verification was conducted before withdrawing his candidature.The petitioner contended that the cancellation of his candidature wasbased on fabricated claims.
Findings
The Court, at the outset, held that the role of a Writ Court to interfere with the discretionary power of the appointing authority is very limited. This discretion, however, must be exercised judiciously, with due regard to the principles of fairness, proportionality and the objectives of public service.
Justice Panigrahi then proceeded on the examine the findings of the Apex Court in similar cases. In Avtar Singh v. Union of India, the Court held that in case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases, such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services.
In Daya Sankar Yadav v. Union of India, the Supreme Court found that when the candidate knowingly made a false statement that he was not prosecuted in a criminal case, he was not entitled to any benefit of doubt.
In the present case, the Court noted, the petitioner had not undergone any criminal conviction but he failed to mention three pending FIRs at the time of application, despite the question in the recruitment form specifically requesting disclosure of such information.
The Bench was of the view that the FIRs, though not resulting in convictions or formal Court arrests, were material to the application process and should have been disclosed.
“The petitioner's failure to disclose these FIRs, even though no court arrest occurred, constitutes suppression of material information. The purpose of the disclosure was to ensure transparency and assess the candidate's suitability for a role demanding high standards of integrity. The concealment of the FIRs undermines this principle and raises concerns about the candidate's integrity,” it observed.
Thus, it was held that it is within the employer's discretion to assess the impact of withholding such material information, including involvement in criminal cases and the employer must evaluate all relevant facts and circumstances, considering objective criteria and applicable service rules, before making a decision.
Resultantly, the Court found no fault in the impugned action taken by the appointing authorities and accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Manoj Rohidas v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No: W.P.(C) No. 14568 of 2024
Date of Judgment: December 17, 2024
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S.K. Purohit, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. A. Khandelwal, Advocate
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 100