Summary
A candidate for Constable in the Rajasthan Police declared in his 2008 application that no criminal case was pending against him, though an FIR of December 2007 was pending; his candidature was rejected for suppression. A Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court directed the State to consider him, treating the offences as trivial under Avtar Singh, and the Division Bench affirmed, though by then three more FIRs had been registered against him, ending in two compromise acquittals, one conviction with probation and one pending trial. The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal: the question is not the triviality of the offence but the suppression of a material fact and a false statement at the threshold, which by itself shows a want of character unbefitting a uniformed service; such a candidate cannot claim appointment as of right.
Issues
- Whether a candidate for appointment as a police constable who falsely declared in his application that no criminal case was pending against him can be directed to be considered for appointment on the ground that the suppressed offences were trivial.
- Whether subsequent FIRs, compromise acquittals and a probation-order conviction during the pendency of the litigation may be taken into account.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14 and 16 (public employment; verification of character and antecedents), Constitution of IndiaThe object of requiring disclosure of criminal antecedents in an application or attestation form is to ascertain the candidate's character and suitability; suppression or a false statement in answer to such queries is itself a ground to refuse employment, distinct from the antecedents themselves, and the candidate cannot claim appointment as a matter of right (Daya Shankar Yadav; B. Chinnam Naidu; Devendra Kumar; Jainendra Singh; Abhijit Singh Pawar; Anil Kanwariya). (¶¶ 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 6.11, 7)
- Section 12 (removal of disqualification attaching to conviction), Probation of Offenders Act, 1958A later grant of probation does not assist a candidate whose false declaration preceded it; the issue is the credibility and trustworthiness of one who suppressed a pending case at the initial stage (Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam v. Anil Kanwariya). (¶¶ 2.4, 6.11, 8)
Held
- A constable's duty is to maintain law and order, so he must be honest, trustworthy and of unimpeachable integrity; a uniformed service presupposes a higher level of integrity and any act of deceit or subterfuge cannot be tolerated. The High Court erred in directing consideration of the candidate because the offences were trivial: the question is one of suppression of a material fact about criminal antecedents and an incorrect statement in the application form, and a person who does so at the very beginning cannot be trusted to perform his duties honestly thereafter. (¶¶ 6.1, 6.2, 6.3)
- Suppression of material information or a false statement in reply to queries about prosecution or conviction is by itself a ground to refuse employment or discharge a probationer, even if the candidate was ultimately acquitted, because it shows a current dubious conduct and absence of character at the time of the declaration; the pendency of a case may not involve moral turpitude but suppressing it does, and the employer, having regard to the nature of the employment, has the discretion to decline appointment, which cannot be compelled even where a truthful disclosure of a concluded case is made. (¶¶ 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 6.11, 7)
- During the proceedings three or four further FIRs were registered against the candidate, two ending in acquittal on compromise, one in conviction with the benefit of probation, and one still pending; such a person cannot be appointed to the post of constable, and the authority rightly rejected his candidature. (¶¶ 8, 9)
Result
Appeal allowed; the Rajasthan High Court's judgment of 04.03.2020 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1479 of 2018 and the Single Judge's order of 12.03.2018 in Civil Writ Petition No. 10250 of 2008 directing the State to consider the respondent for appointment as Constable quashed; the rejection of his candidature for suppressing his criminal antecedents upheld. No order as to costs.