Suppressing Pending Criminal Case Ground To Deny Employment Irrespective Of Gravity Of Charges: Rajasthan High Court

The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur held that the seriousness of the offence for which the petitioner was accused of was not relevant but suppression of the material fact was itself a ground to deny the employment. It was opined that since the post in question was that of a primary school teacher, the conduct and character of the employee became more relevant and important.

“When a person is entrusted with the pious duty of imparting education and Sanskar to the young children, then the most important & relevant criteria for selection of that person should be trustfulness and unimpeachable integrity.”

The petitioner had cleared the relevant examination for the post and was called for document verification during which it was revealed that there was a pending criminal case against him. As a result, he was not given the appointment and the petitioner filed a petition before the Court.

The counsel for the State Government submitted that it was a clear case of concealment and misrepresentation. The petitioner denied having any pending criminal cases against him by putting a “cross” in the attestation form in front of the concerned question and also gave a statement to this effect in the self-declaration form submitted under his own signature. The counsel argued that giving such an individual the post of a primary school teacher would ruin and spoil the future of young generation.

Agreeing with the arguments presented by the counsel for the State Government, the Court made a reference to the Supreme Court case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyug Prasaran Nigam Ltd. V/s Anil Kanwariya, that dealt with a similar fact situation and held that,

“Then the question is of TRUST. Therefore, in such a situation, where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to the employer.”

In line with the ruling, the Court also observed that the relevant question was not the charges in the pending criminal case against the petitioner but the fact of him suppressing the information for seeking employment which in itself was a ground for denying him the employment.

The Court opined that if the credential of the candidate was based on the foundation of falsehood, fraud and misrepresentation, then the institution in which he would be posted as a teacher would be bleak.

Hence, the Court held that the petitioner did not deserve leniency in this regard even if he was meritorious. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Title: Satyanarayan Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 261