THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs. CHETAN JEFF

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3116 OF 2022 State of Rajasthan & Ors.           ..Appellants Versus Chetan Jeff    ..Respondent J U D G M E N T  M. R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned judgment and  order  dated  04.03.2020 passed by  the  High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in D.B. Special Appeal Writ  No.1479 of 2018 by which the High Court has   dismissed   the   said   appeal   preferred   by   the   State   of Rajasthan and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the State to consider the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2022.05.11 17:01:53 IST Reason: case  of  the  respondent herein ­ original writ  petitioner  for 1 appointment to the post of Constable (General), the State has preferred the present appeal. 2. The facts leading to the present case in a nutshell are as under: 2.1 Applications   were   invited   by   the   Director   General   of Police   Rajasthan,   Jaipur   vide   Letter   dated   07.04.2008,   for recruitment   to   4684   vacant   posts   of   Constable   (General), Constable (Operator), Constable (Driver) and Constable (Band) in different Districts/Battalions/Units of Rajasthan Police.  As per 2008 Recruitment Notification, all interested candidates were required to qualify the written test, physical efficiency test,   proficiency   test,   special   qualification   test   and   an interview   for   securing   appointment   for   different   posts   of constable.  As per paragraph 9(e) of the said notification, the candidates were required to fill in the correct information in their application forms.   It provided that if the information disclosed in the application form was found to be wrong and incomplete, such an application form was liable to be rejected at any stage of the selection process.  The respondent applied for  the   said   post   and   submitted   the   application   form.     In column 15 of the Job Application Form dated 26.04.2008 the respondent herein ­ (hereinafter referred to as original writ 2 petitioner) had categorically stated that there were no criminal antecedents against him.   He also stated that there were no pending FIRs or criminal cases against him.  He also enclosed the signed declaration with the application form stating that the information disclosed in para 15 of the Job Application Form   dated   26.04.2008   was   correct   and   there   was   no concealment of any criminal record by him. 2.2 The original writ petitioner cleared the written test as well as the physical test.   At this stage it is required to be noted that as such, the original writ petitioner was already facing criminal proceedings in FIR bearing No.458/2007 dated 17.12.2007 registered against him at Police Station, Neem ka Thana, Sikar for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341 and 336 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the IPC’).  However, the same was not disclosed by him in the Job Application Form.  Thus, as such he suppressed the material   fact   about   pendency   of   the   FIR/Criminal   Case against him. 2.3 The Superintendent of Police, District Sikar informed the Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh vide communication dated 21.08.2008 about the said FIR No.458 of 2007.  Based upon the said information, the candidature of the original writ 3 petitioner was rejected on the ground that the original writ petitioner   suppressed   the   material   fact   about   his   criminal antecedents in Column 15 and made an incorrect statement in the job application form. 2.4 Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature, the original writ petitioner preferred the writ petition before the learned Single Judge of the High Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.10250 of 2008.  It appears that one another FIR bearing   No.102/2012   dated   27.01.2012   was   registered against the original writ petitioner at Police Station Neem ka Thana, Sikar for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 380, 352, 427 of the IPC.   By the judgment and order dated 30.07.2015, the learned trial Court acquitted him for the offences under Section 352 read with Section 149 IPC in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. For the offences under Sections 147, 148, 455, 440 read with Section   149   of   the   IPC   the   original   writ   petitioner   was acquitted   extending   the   benefit   of   doubt.     However,   the learned ACJM – I, Neem ka Thana, Sikar vide judgment and order dated 21.01.2016 convicted the original writ petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 341 & 323 read with 4 Section  34   IPC.    However,  he   was  accorded   benefit  of   the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 2.5 By   the   Judgment   and   Order   dated   12.03.2018,   the learned Single Judge allowed the aforesaid writ petition and directed the State to consider the case of the original writ petitioner for the post of Constable,  inter alia,  on the following grounds: “1.  That the Parties failed to place any material on record to show that the Respondent suppressed the information with respect to the criminal antecedents in the column 15 of the said Job Application Form dated 26.04.2008. 2.   That the Respondent in the instant case was charged   with   the   offences   which   were   trivial   in nature and the suppression of such offences by the Respondent   should   have   been   ignored   by   the Petitioners   herein.     In   order   to   substantiate   the aforesaid proposition, the Hon’ble High Court relied upon the judgment in  Avtar Singh versus Union of . India & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471 3.  That the judgment dated 01.03.2017 in the case of   Bhanja Ram versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6884 of 2008,  applied squarely   to   the   facts   mentioned   in   the   said   Writ Petition.” 2.6 The  third  FIR  bearing  No.348/2018  dated  05.09.2018 was registered against the  original writ petitioner at Police Station Neem   ka  Thana,   Sikar  for   the  offences  punishable under Sections 341 & 323 of the IPC. 5 2.7 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the Civil Writ   Petition   No.10250   of   2008   and   directing   the   State   to consider the case of the original writ petitioner for the post of Constable,   the   State   preferred   the   Writ   Appeal   before   the Division Bench of the High Court. 2.8 During   the   pendency   of   the   Writ   Appeal,   the   learned ACJM, Neem ka Thana, Sikar vide judgment and order dated 09.09.2019   acquitted   the   original   writ   petitioner   for   the offences punishable under Sections 341 & 323 of the IPC in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties in FIR No.348/2018. 2.9 One   another   FIR   bearing   No.505/2018,   dated 20.12.2018 was registered at Neem ka Thana, Sikar against the original writ petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 382, 427 IPC. 2.10 Despite   the   above,   by   the   impugned   Judgment   and Order dated 04.03.2020, the Division Bench of the High Court has   dismissed   the   said   appeal   and   has   confirmed   the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge directed the State to consider the case of the original writ petitioner for the appointment as 6 Constable.  That, in the meantime, the original writ petitioner has been charge­sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 382, 427 of the IPC in relation to the FIR No.505/2018 and the trial is pending. 2.11 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing the writ appeal and confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the appellant   –   State   to   consider   the   case   of   the   original   writ petitioner   for   appointment   as   Constable,   the   State   has preferred the present appeal. 3. We   have   heard   Dr.   Manish   Singhvi,   learned   Senior Advocate   and   AAG   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   State   of Rajasthan and Mr. R.K. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioner.  4. Dr.   Manish   Singhvi,   learned   Senior   Advocate,   has vehemently   submitted   that   considering   the   criminal antecedents   which   were   suppressed   by   the   original   writ petitioner,   both   the   learned   Single   Judge   as   well   as   the Division Bench have committed a grave error in directing the appellant   ­   State   to   consider   the   case   of   the   original   writ petitioner for appointment as a constable. 7 4.1 It is contended by Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan that despite Column 15 of the Job Application Form of the original writ petitioner by which he was required to state true and correct facts of criminal antecedents and despite the fact that he   was   facing   criminal   prosecution   by   way   of   FIR No.458/2007, the original writ petitioner suppressed the same and did not disclose the same.   It is submitted that on the contrary in the column of “ whether any criminal case has been registered against the applicant ?” he said “No”.   4.2 It   is   submitted   therefore,   when   the   candidate   at   the initial stage itself did not state the true and correct facts and as such suppressed the material facts, he is not entitled to be appointed on the post as Constable.  4.3 It is submitted that the post of Constable whose duty is to maintain law and order, first of all should be honest.  It is submitted that a candidate who, at the initial stage and before even getting the appointment as a constable has suppressed the material facts of having criminal antecedents and he has made a false statement in the application form.  How can he 8 be trusted and be appointed as a Constable?  It is submitted that   as   such   the   State   was   justified   in   rejecting   his candidature   as   a   constable.     Reliance   is   placed   upon   the

India,   (2016)   8   SCC   471   as   well   as   Daya   Shankar Yadav v. Union of India, (2010) 14 SCC 103 .   4.4 It   is   urged   by   Dr.   Manish   Singhvi,   learned   Senior Advocate for the State that even otherwise and till the Division Bench   decided   the   writ  appeal,   the   original   writ   petitioner faced 3 to 4 more FIRs, out of which, in two cases he was acquitted by entering into a compromise and in one case he has been convicted, however has been given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act.  It is submitted that one criminal case is still pending against him.  That such a person cannot be appointed as a constable.   Therefore, it is requested that this Court must consider the subsequent events also. 5. Present appeal is opposed by Mr. R.K. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioner.  5.1 It is vehemently submitted by Mr. R.K. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioner that 9 having   found   that   the   offences   against   the   original   writ petitioner were trivial in nature and he was acquitted and in one   case   he   has   been   granted   the   benefit   of   Probation   of Offenders Act, both, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have rightly directed the State to consider the case of the original writ petitioner for the post of Constable. 5.2 It is submitted that when both, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have concurred on directing the State to consider the case of the original writ petitioner for the post of Constable and by giving cogent reasons, the same may not be  interfered with by  this Court  in exercise of  powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 6. We   have   heard   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the respective parties at length. 6.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the post on which the writ petitioner is seeking the appointment is the post of constable.  It cannot be disputed that the duty of the constable   is   to   maintain   law   and   order.     Therefore,   it   is expected that he should be honest, trustworthy and that his 10 integrity is above board and that he is reliable.  An employee in   the   uniformed   service   presupposes   a   higher   level   of integrity as such a person is expected to uphold the law and on the contrary any act in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated. In the present case the original writ petitioner has not confirmed to the above expectations/ requirements.   He suppressed the material facts of his criminal antecedents.  He did not disclose in the application form that against him a criminal   case/FIR   is   pending.     On   the   contrary,   in   the application form, he made a false statement that he is not facing   any   criminal   case.     Therefore,   due   to   the   aforesaid suppression,   his   candidature   came   to   be   rejected   by   the appropriate authority.  Despite the above, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitioner and directed the State to consider   the   case   of   the   original   writ   petitioner   for appointment as a constable mainly on the ground that the offences were trivial in nature and the suppression of such offences   should   have   been   ignored.     The   same   has   been confirmed by the Division Bench.  11 6.2 The question is not whether the offences were trivial in nature or not.  The question is one of suppression of material fact by the original writ petitioner in respect of his criminal antecedents and making a false statement in the application form.     If   in   the   beginning   itself,   he   has   suppressed   the material fact in respect to his criminal antecedents and in fact made an incorrect statement, how can he be appointed as a constable.  How can he be trusted thereafter in future?  How it is expected that thereafter he will perform his duty honestly and with integrity?  6.3 Therefore,   as   such   the   authorities   were   justified   in rejecting the candidature of the respondent for the post of constable. 6.4 At this stage the decision of this Court in the case of Daya Shankar Yadav (supra)  is required to be referred to. In paras 14 and 16, it is observed and held as  under: “14.  Rule 14 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules,   1955   relevant   in   this   case   relates   to verification. Clauses ( a ) and ( b ) of the said Rule are extracted below: “ 14.  .—( a )   As   soon   as   a   man   is Verification enrolled,   his   character,   antecedents,   connections 12

13

information   in   the   attestation   form   and   the   declaration thereafter   by   the   candidate   is   to   ascertain   and   verify   the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to enter into or  continue   in   service.   It  is   further   observed   that   when   a candidate suppresses material information and/or gives false information, he cannot claim any right for appointment or continuance in service.

to submit an affidavit giving certain information, particularly, whether he had ever been involved in any criminal case. The employee   submitted   an   affidavit  stating   that   he   had   never been involved in any criminal case. The employee completed his training   satisfactorily  and  it  was  at  this   time   that  the employer in pursuance of the process of character verification came to know that the employee was in fact involved in a criminal case. It was found that the final report in that case had been submitted by the prosecution and accepted by the 14 Judicial Magistrate concerned. On the basis of the same, the employee was discharged abruptly on the ground that since he was a temporary government servant, he could be removed from service without holding an enquiry. The said order was challenged by the employee by filing a writ petition before a Single Judge of the High Court which was dismissed. The Division   Bench   upheld   that   order,   which   was   the   subject­ matter of appeal before this Court. Dismissing the appeal, this Court observed and held that the question is not whether the employee is suitable for the post. The pendency of a criminal case/proceeding is different from suppressing the information of such pendency. The case pending against a person might not   involve   moral   turpitude   but   suppressing   of   this information itself amounts to moral turpitude. It is further observed that the information sought by the employer if not disclosed as required, would definitely amount to suppression of material information and in that eventuality, the service becomes liable to be terminated, even if there had been no further   trial   or   the   person   concerned   stood acquitted/discharged. 15

that   “a   candidate   having   suppressed   material   information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service and the employer, having regard to the nature of employment as well as other aspects, has the discretion to terminate his services.   In para 29.6, it is further observed that   the   person   who   suppressed   the   material   information and/or   gives   false   information   cannot   claim   any   right   for appointment   or   continuity   in   service.     In   para   29.7,   it   is observed and held that “the standard expected of a person intended to serve in uniformed service is quite distinct from other   services   and,   therefore,   any   deliberate   statement   or omission regarding a vital information can be seriously viewed and the ultimate decision of the appointing authority cannot be faulted.

SCC 103 , this Court had an occasion to consider the purpose of seeking the information with respect to antecedents. It is observed and held that the purpose of seeking the information 16

17 ( d ) Where the attestation form or verification form does   not   contain   proper   or   adequate   queries requiring the declarant to disclose his involvement in any criminal proceedings, or where the candidate was   unaware   of   initiation   of   criminal   proceedings when   he   gave   the   declarations   in   the   verification roll/attestation form, then the candidate cannot be found   fault   with,   for   not   furnishing   the   relevant information. But if the employer by other means (say police verification or complaints, etc.) learns about the involvement of the declarant, the employer can have recourse to courses ( a ) or ( b ) above.” Thereafter, it is observed and held that an employee can   be   discharged   from   service   or   a   prospective employee may be refused employment on the ground of   suppression   of   material   information   or   making false   statement   in   reply   to   queries   relating   to prosecution or conviction for a criminal offence (even if he was ultimately acquitted in the criminal case).

process,   he   tendered   an   affidavit   disclosing   the   pending criminal case against him. The affidavit was filed on 22­12­ 2012. According to the disclosure, a case registered in the year 2006 was pending on the date when the affidavit was tendered. However, within four days of filing such an affidavit, a   compromise   was   entered   into   between   the   original complainant   and   the   employee   and   an   application   for compounding the offence was filed under Section 320 CrPC. 18 The employee came to be discharged in view of the deed of compromise. That thereafter the employee was selected in the examination   and   was   called   for   medical   examination. However, around the same time, his character verification was also undertaken and after due consideration of the character verification report, his candidature was rejected. The employee filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging rejection of   his   candidature.   The   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed the said writ petition. The judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge directing   the   State   to   appoint   the   employee   came   to   be confirmed by the Division Bench which led to appeal before this Court. After considering a catena of decisions on the point

rejecting the candidature of the employee by observing that as

disclosure about a concluded case was made, the employer would   still   have   a   right   to   consider   antecedents   of   the 19 candidate   and   could   not   be   compelled   to   appoint   such candidate.

decision   in  ,   in   Avtar   Singh  (supra) Abhijit   Singh   Pawar (supra) , in para 13, this Court observed and held as under:  

6.11 Recently,   in   the   case   of   Rajasthan   Rajya   Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited  v. Anil  Kanwariya,  (2021) 10 SCC   136 ,   this   Court   had   an   occasion   to   consider   the submission   on   behalf   of   an   employee   whose   services   were terminated on the ground of filing a false declaration to the effect that neither a criminal case is pending against him nor has he been convicted by any Court of law, that subsequently he has been granted the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act and therefore his services ought not to have 20 been terminated.  This Court has observed in paras 13 & 14 as under:

21

7. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid cases, it cannot be said that  the authority committed any error in rejecting the candidature of the original writ petitioner for the post of constable in the instant case.   8. Even   otherwise   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that subsequently and during the proceedings before the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench, there are three to four   other   FIRs   filed   against   the   original   writ   petitioner culminating into criminal trials and in two cases he has been acquitted   on   the   ground   of   compromise   and   in   one   case though   convicted,   he   has   been   granted   the   benefit   of Probation   of   Offenders   Act.     One   more   criminal   case   is pending against him.   Therefore, the original writ petitioner cannot be appointed to such a post of constable. 9. In   view   of   the   above   discussion   and   for   the   reasons stated above, both, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have erred in directing the State to consider the case of the respondent for appointment as a constable. 22 The   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   is unsustainable, both, on facts as well as on law. Under the circumstances, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.  It is held that the candidature of the respondent – original writ petitioner for the post of constable had been rightly rejected by the appropriate authority.  Present appeal is accordingly allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.  …………………………………J.                   (M. R. SHAH) …………………………………J.  (B.V. NAGARATHNA) New Delhi,  May 11, 2022. 23