Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8510/2011
State of West Bengal & Ors. …Appellants
Versus
Mitul Kumar Jana …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
J.K. Maheshwari, J.
1. This appeal arises out of the judgement of the High Court of Judicature at
Calcutta, dated 16.12.2010, passed in ‘WPST No. 600 of 2010’ filed by
respondent Mitul Kumar Jana. The High Court by the said judgment
allowed the writ and set-aside the order dated 23.11.2010 passed by the
West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (for short “Tribunal” ) and directed
the appellant no. 2, i.e., the Superintendent of Police to appoint the
respondent as constable in the West Bengal police force.
2. Succinctly stated, facts of this case are that the respondent appeared before
appellant no. 2 – Superintendent of Police, South 24 Parganas, for
measurement, physical efficiency test and for interview on 06.09.2008,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2023.08.28
16:08:24 IST
Reason:
09.09.2008 and 10.09.2008 respectively. He was declared fit in the said
selection, and placed in the merit list of the constables in the West Bengal
1
Police Force. Pursuant thereto, respondent was supplied with the ‘Police
Verification Roll’ and asked to fill-up the same in his own handwriting. He
deposited the same with the appointing authority within the time schedule.
As per the police verification report sent by the local Police Station, it was
alleged that the respondent was implicated in a criminal case bearing Case
No. 124 of 2007, dated 03.08.2007, registered at Kakdwip Police Station.
After investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 31.08.2007, whereafter, the
trial was pending at the time of his interview and physical test. The police
report further indicated that the respondent was granted anticipatory bail
on 16.08.2007 and regular bail on 27.08.2007.
3. Upon scrutinizing the said verification form, the authority formed an
opinion that the respondent had suppressed material information regarding
his involvement in a pending criminal case. The verification roll submitted
by the respondent was sent to the Intelligence Branch, West Bengal for
opinion. Vide Memo no. 3875/S – 503-08/S.A. – II/VR, dated 09.02.2009,
the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Intelligence Branch had informed
that the respondent has supressed the fact of his involvement in a criminal
case and as the case against the respondent is sub-judice, no opinion for his
suitability could be given at this stage. In the given facts, order of
appointment was not issued by the appellant. However, the respondent
filed Original Application No. 343 of 2010 before the Tribunal seeking
directions to issue the letter of appointment on account of his selection for
2
the post of constable in the West Bengal Police Force. The Authorities filed
their reply and contended that the respondent was involved in a criminal
case and despite having knowledge of the same, he had not disclosed the
same in the verification roll and suppressed the information about the
pending criminal case, hence, he is not suitable for the appointment.
4. The Tribunal vide order dated 23.11.2010, disposed-off the Original
Application and was of the opinion that it is not a case of suppression of
information by the respondent. It was said that, without his acquittal in the
pending criminal case, direction to issue the letter of appointment cannot
be recommended and observed that, in case the respondent is acquitted, his
case may be considered by the appellant as per rules.
5. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred Writ Petition before the High
Court at Calcutta and prayed for appropriate directions. The Court in the
impugned judgement referred to column no. 12 of the verification roll and
opined that the information sought in the said column was of arrest,
detention and conviction. As per details asked in the said column,
information regarding pending criminal case was not required to be
furnished. Therefore, the High Court concurred with the finding of the
Tribunal on the issue of suppression of material information and was of the
opinion that because the respondent has not yet been held guilty in the
criminal case by the competent Court, therefore, presumption of innocence
in his favour still remains. Hence, the appellant was directed to issue the
letter of appointment subject to final outcome of the pending criminal case.
3
Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed by the State of
West Bengal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that High Court committed an
error in directing appointment of the respondent particularly during the
pendency of a criminal case against him. The said direction would affect
the morale of the police force and undermine the public faith in it.
Emphasizing the object of furnishing the information in the verification
roll, it was urged that the character of a person to judge his suitability to
the post in public employment is a necessary concomitant to avoid
defacing of the Police Department. In support of the said contention,
reliance is placed on a judgement in the case of “R. Radhakrishnan Vs.
Director General of Police & Others, 2008 (1) SCC 660” to urge that even
on acquittal of a candidate, he can still be denied appointment on account
of suppression of material information regarding pendency of a criminal
case.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent referring to the details of
column 12 of the verification roll, submits that the information sought was
vague and considering the nature of the information asked, the respondent
was not required to furnish the details of the pending criminal case. The
Tribunal and the High Court have appreciated the said issue and rightly
recorded the finding that it is not a case of suppression of material
information, and the High Court was right in directing the appellant to
issue the letter of appointment subject to the decision in the pending
4
criminal case. He further contended that, in the said criminal case,
respondent has been honourably acquitted. Therefore, there is no
impediment before the appellants to carry out such directions. Placing
reliance on the judgement of “Secy., Deptt. of Home Secy., A.P. and
Others Vs. B. Chinnam Naidu, (2005) 2 SCC 746” , it is urged that since
specific requirement to mention about the pending criminal case was not
sought in the verification roll, the respondent cannot be held at fault for
suppression of material information.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material
placed, it is not in dispute that vide judgement dated 04.06.2012, the
learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kakdwip District, South 24
Parganas, acquitted the respondent from the charges of Sections
147/149/447/323/506 of IPC in Criminal Case No. 362/2004. After
appreciating the evidence as brought on record, the Court found that the
prosecution has hopelessly failed to bring home the guilt and prove the
charges against the respondent. On account of acquittal of the accused
persons, the objection regarding pendency of criminal case no more
subsists. In addition, on perusal of the prosecution story of the said case,
the cause of dispute was of egress and ingress to a passage for which the
order of attachment was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. As
alleged, the accused persons started raising fencing which was opposed by
the complainant. For the said incident, FIR against eight accused persons
5
including the respondent was registered. In the said judgement, the name
of the respondent was shown as “Mridul Jana” and not his correct name,
i.e., “Mitul Kumar Jana”. Be that as it may, as discussed above, the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges. In our considered
view, the said allegations do not constitute any offence affecting moral
turpitude and shall not cause any impediment for public employment to a
candidate who got selected by the due process of law.
9. In the facts of the case, the other objection raised by the appellant is related
to suppression of material information in the verification roll. For
analysing the sustainability of the said objection, the language used to ask
information in Column No. 12 of verification roll may be relevant and for
ready reference, it is reproduced as under;
“ Have you been arrested, detained or convicted by a court of any
offence if the answer is 'yes' the full particulars of the Arrest or
detention or conviction and the sentence should be given.
Answer: No ”
10. Bare perusal of the details of the information sought in the above column
indicates that, it was regarding arrest, detention and conviction by a Court
in any offence. In case the answer was ‘yes’, then full particulars of the
arrest or detention or conviction and sentence were required to be
furnished. In case the answer was in the negative, no other particulars were
required to be furnished. In the case on hand, in reply to the information
asked the respondent gave the answer as “no”. As per the contents of the
6
information sought and as per the answer given by the respondent, he is
not required to furnish information regarding pending criminal case.
Therefore, supply of such information by the respondent does not fall
within the expression ‘suppression of material information’. This Court
had an occasion to deal with the similar issue in the case of B. Chinnam
Naidu (supra) . The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced
herein below –
“9. …The State Government and the Tribunal appeared to have
proceeded on the basis that the respondent ought to have indicated
the fact of arrest or pendency of the case, though column 12 of the
attestation form did not require such information being furnished.
The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that such a
requirement has to be read into an attestation form. We find no
reason to accept such contention. There was no specific requirement
to mention as to whether any case is pending or whether the
applicant had been arrested. In view of the specific language so far
as column 12 is concerned the respondent cannot be found guilty of
any suppression. ”
11. In the above case, the Court has distinguished the judgment of “Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan & Others Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav, (2003) 3 SCC
437” , on the pretext that the details of information sought in the
verification roll in said case was different. In the facts of the present case,
the information sought from the respondent in the verification form was
vague. Similar was the position in the case of Chinnam Naidu (supra) .
Therefore, the said judgment squarely applies in the facts of this case.
Though in the said case , finding regarding desirability for appointment of a
7
person in government service was not decided because it was not the
subject matter.
12. In view of the discussion made herein above, the opinion given by the
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Intelligence Branch, and the stand
taken by the Department before the Tribunal and the High Court regarding
suppression of material information by the respondent cannot be
countenanced. The Tribunal and the High Court have rightly recorded the
finding that it is not a case of suppression of material information and we
affirm such finding. Simultaneously, the criminal case registered against
the respondent were for petty offences. The allegations in the said case
were neither of heinous/serious offences, nor related to an offence
involving moral turpitude. In the said case, the respondent was honourably
acquitted because the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the
charges. Hence, in our view, prima-facie there appears no impediment to
issue the order of appointment in favour of the respondent.
13. It is relevant to state here that on the issues relating to suppression of
information and/or submitting false information and as to the question of
having been arrested or regarding pendency of a criminal case and effect of
conviction/acquittal in such criminal cases, there were conflicting opinions
of Division Bench judgments of this Court. On making a reference, the
said controversy has been decided in the case of “Avtar Singh Vs. Union
of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471” . The Court after considering
8
various judgments has taken a holistic approach and summarised certain
yardsticks in Paragraph 38, which are reproduced as thus:
“38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and
reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we
summarize our conclusion thus:
38.1 Information given to the employer by a candidate as to
conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case,
whether before or after entering into service must be true and there
should be no suppression or false mention of required information.
38.2 While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of
candidature for giving false information, the employer may take
notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such
information.
38.3 The employer shall take into consideration the Government
orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of
taking the decision.
38.4 In case there is suppression or false information of involvement
in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been
recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such
fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following
recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted : -
38.4.1 In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been
recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence
which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for
post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such
suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.
38.4.2 Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial
in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of
the employee.
38.4.3 If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving
moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical
ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable
doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts
available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to
the continuance of the employee.
38.5 In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of
a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider
antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
9
38.6 In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character
verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial
nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its
discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.
38.7 In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to
multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume
significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling
candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person
against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be
proper.
38.8 If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at
the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the
appointing authority would take decision after considering the
seriousness of the crime.
38.9 In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding
Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of
termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or
submitting false information in verification form.
38.10 For determining suppression or false information
attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such
information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be
disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to
knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective
manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such
cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting
false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.
38.11 Before a person is held guilty of “suppressio veri” or suggestio
falsi”, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him. ”
14. As per the said case, para 38.10 comes to the aid of the respondent,
because in this case, the information sought in verification roll was not
specific and vague in nature. The respondent has specifically disclosed the
information which was required to be furnished. Considering the
subsequent development of the clean acquittal of respondent for the petty
offences, it requires consideration objectively by the authority, about the
10
question of fitness, ignoring the issue of supressing the information. Even
in case where the information regarding pending criminal case is truthfully
furnished and on acquittal therein, an employer has the discretion to
consider the antecedents while issuing the letter of appointment. The High
Court could not have directed the issuance of the letter of appointment as
per para 38.5 of the case of Avtar Singh (supra) . In our view, the issuance
of order of appointment is required to be left on the discretion of the
employer and the High Court ought not to have taken away the said
discretion. Accordingly, we modify the order passed by the High Court.
15. In view of the discussion made herein above, we confirm the findings of
the Tribunal and the High Court on the issue of suppression of material
information. As the respondent was not involved in heinous/serious offence
or any offence involving moral turpitude, and the fact that in the said
criminal case he has been honourably acquitted, therefore, modifying the
order of the High Court, we direct the appellant to consider the case of the
respondent and issue order of appointment to the post of constable in West
Bengal Police Force within a period of four weeks from the date of passing
of this order. Needless to observe that the authorities shall take note of the
discussion made herein above and shall exercise their discretion
judiciously in assessing the suitability and antecedents of the prospective
candidate. It is made further clear that in the event of issuance of the order
of appointment, the respondent would only be entitled to notional benefits
11
including continuity in service and pay fixation at par with other similarly
situated persons and he would not be entitled for salary and back wages till
the date of his appointment.
16. Accordingly, this appeal stands disposed-off in the above terms. Pending
application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed-off. No order as to costs.
……………………………J.
[J.K. MAHESHWARI]
……………………………J.
[K.V. VISWANATHAN]
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 22, 2023.
12