Non-Disclosure Of Criminal Antecedent In Recruitment Not Always Fatal, Courts Must Apply Mind To Avoid Arbitrariness: Supreme Court

“Broad-brushing every non-disclosure as a disqualification, will be unjust and the same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the ground realities obtaining in this great, vast and diverse country. Each case will depend on the facts and circumstances that prevail thereon, and the court will have to take a holistic view, based on objective criteria, with the available precedents serving as a guide,” the Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan said.

To recapitulate facts of the case, the appellant had initially moved the Allahabad High Court against letter dated April 12, 2005, whereby his selection for the post of Constable was cancelled owing to non-disclosure of a criminal case against him during the verification process.

Under the recruitment notification, he was required to furnish an affidavit in the format given by the Selection Committee, which specifically mentioned that facts were found to have been concealed, the selection would be liable for cancellation. Even as he was obligated to disclose all registered criminal cases and/or details of acquittals, the appellant answered the queries in the negative.

A Single Judge dismissed his plea, observing that at the time of filling of the form, the appellant suppressed material information with regard to his involvement in a criminal case and the same did not stand absolved on account of the subsequent acquittal.

In the Special Appeal against the Single Judge's decision, a Division Bench of the High Court concurred and held that if a person swears a false affidavit at the time of enrolment, he is not fit to be enrolled in disciplined service. While denying relief, the Division Bench also opined that the act of swearing a false affidavit has bearing on a person's conduct and character.

Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, claiming that there was no willful concealment on his part and the disclosure was not made under a bona fide belief that it was not required in light of the acquittal.

The State continued to emphasize that the appellant made a false representation in his affidavit. It relied on Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, where it was held that information given by a candidate to its employer with regard to criminal antecedents must be true and there must be no suppression.

The State further averred that the recruitment notification and the queries in the affidavit were quite clear; there being suppression, the cancellation was perfectly justified. It also pointed out that other applicants who gave false statements were visited with same consequences.

After hearing the parties, the Court noted that when the appellant applied for the post of Constable, there was no criminal case registered or pending against him. He was only embroiled in the criminal case 5 days after making the application. The case ultimately resulted in an acquittal by the Trial Court vide order dated September 13, 2004, which was not challenged.

Referring to Avtar Singh, it posited that even though a person who has suppressed material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment, he or she has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily. Ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria after due consideration of all relevant aspects. In fact, while passing the order of cancellation, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case.

“The nature of the office, the timing and nature of the criminal case; the overall consideration of the judgement of acquittal; the nature of the query in the application/verification form; the contents of the character verification reports; the socio economic strata of the individual applying; the other antecedents of the candidate; the nature of consideration and the contents of the cancellation/termination order are some of the crucial aspects which should enter the judicial verdict in adjudging suitability and in determining the nature of relief to be ordered”.

The Bench also adverted to Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others, where a similar case of cancellation of selection to the post of Constable was dealt with. It noted that in the captioned case, there was a clause in the verification form akin to the one in the present case, and there were allegations of the appellant therein furnishing an affidavit with incorrect facts at the time of recruitment. Yet, relief was granted.

The Court also found from the material on record that the verification report, after noticing the criminal case against the appellant and the subsequent acquittal, stated that his character & general reputation were good, and no complaints were found against him. The SHO who forwarded the report to the Superintendent of Police also conveyed that there was no other case pending or registered against the appellant.

Rather, the SHO and the Superintendent had certified the appellant to be of good character.

In the backdrop of the above, the Court held that the cancellation order was neither fair nor reasonable, as it did not follow the mandate prescribed in the Form of verification of character. It regretted that instead of considering whether the appellant was suitable for appointment, the Appointing Authority mechanically held that the selection was irregular and illegal because he had furnished an affidavit with incorrect facts.

Observing that non-disclosure, in the facts of the present case, could not be deemed fatal, the Court directed that the appellant be appointed in service on the post of Constable for which he was selected. Though arrears of salary for the period during which he did not render service in the force were denied, it was held that the appellant shall be entitled for all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits.

Case Title: Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5902/2012

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 155

Click here to read the judgment