Suppression of Criminal Antecedents and Filing False Affidavits Amounts to Moral Turpitude Barring Reinstatement

The appellant was selected as a constable in the Civil Police, Pauri Garhwal. During the selection process, he submitted an affidavit and application form declaring that no criminal cases were pending against him

Verification later revealed that a criminal case under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act was pending at the time

Although the appellant was later acquitted, his services were terminated for suppression of material facts

The appellant filed WPSS No. 224 of 2017 seeking reinstatement (without challenging the termination order), which was dismissed by the Single Judge on 29.06.2018

The appellant filed the present intra-court appeal after a delay of 1701 days

1. Whether the inordinate delay of 1701 days in filing the appeal can be condoned based on the explanation provided regarding the death of previous counsel

2. Whether the suppression of a pending criminal case during recruitment constitutes moral turpitude and justifies the dismissal of the writ petition

The Court applied the settled legal principle that obtaining an office by misrepresenting facts or playing fraud upon the competent authority renders such an appointment unsustainable in law

the rule that suppressing information regarding a criminal case, even if the case itself does not involve moral turpitude, is an act that itself amounts to moral turpitude

Regarding procedural law, the Court applied principles governing the condonation of delay, requiring a "believable" and "sufficient cause" for laches

The Division Bench observed that the appellant’s explanation for the 1701-day delay—alleging his previous counsel died without providing a name or specific details—was an "apparently false story" set up to bypass the statute of limitations

On the merits, the Court upheld the Single Judge’s reasoning that the appellant had secured his position through fraud. The Court noted that even though the appellant was acquitted by the CJM, the act of giving a false declaration in the affidavit at the time of recruitment was fatal to his claim

The Bench further noted that the appellant had sought reinstatement without even challenging the underlying termination order, and his conduct in filing a false affidavit for the delay condonation application mirrored the original fraud committed during recruitment

The Court affirmed that the suppression of criminal history at the time of appointment is a valid ground for termination, as fraud vitiates the selection process. The Court dismissed the appeal and all pending applications