Summary
The Supreme Court restored the rejection of a discharged police constable’s service challenge. He had denied involvement in a criminal case despite having surrendered and obtained bail before applying. The case was not trivial, and its later quashing on compromise did not justify treating the suppression as technical. Truthful disclosure of material antecedents was a legitimate requirement for police employment.
Issues
- Whether later compromise-based quashing of a criminal case justified reinstatement despite its knowing suppression when applying for police service.
Held
- Applying Avtar Singh requires attention to the circumstances, applicable rules, specificity of the information sought and the candidate’s knowledge; disclosure must be truthful. Police duties concern law and order and personal liberty, making truthful antecedent disclosure a legitimate basis for assessing character. (¶¶ 6, 7)
- The respondent had surrendered and obtained bail before applying, yet denied criminal involvement. The underlying case was not trivial and was quashed on compromise only after discharge; the High Court’s contrary treatment of the suppression could not stand. (¶¶ 4, 5, 8)
Result
State’s appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside, Tribunal’s order maintained and the respondent’s original application dismissed. No order as to costs.