Suppression of Criminal Antecedents Justifies Rejection of Candidature but Not Automatic Termination of Long-Standing Service

The respondent/petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable in 2003 and served for approximately ten years with a clean record.

In 2012, while serving, he applied for the post of Sub-Inspector through an intra-departmental examination but failed to disclose a 1998 criminal case (Sections 447, 456 IPC) in his attestation form, which had ended in acquittal via compromise in 1999.

Upon discovery of this suppression during training in 2013, the Department not only rejected his candidature for the Sub-Inspector post but also initiated a departmental inquiry leading to his termination from his original post of Constable in 2015.

The Writ Court set aside the termination from the post of Constable but upheld the rejection of his promotion/appointment to Sub-Inspector.

Both parties appealed.

1. Whether the suppression of a past criminal case (ending in compromise) justifies the termination of an employee from a post (Constable) they have already held for over a decade with a clean service record.

2. Whether the non-disclosure of criminal antecedents in an attestation form is sufficient grounds to deny appointment to a higher, more responsible executive post (Sub-Inspector).

The Court applied the principles governing character verification and suppression of facts established in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471.

This precedent mandates that while suppression is serious, the employer must exercise objective discretion, considering the triviality of the offense and the nature of the post.

The court also referred to Pawan Kumar v. Union of India (2022) SCC OnLine SC 532, which holds that suppression does not lead to axiomatic termination; the employer must consider all relevant circumstances.

The Court differentiated between the two posts based on the degree of responsibility.

Regarding the Constable post, the Court reasoned that since the petitioner had served for ten years without any disciplinary issues and the initial appointment in 2003 was not found to be based on fraud, termination after a decade for a 1998 "trivial" case was "too harsh" and legally erroneous.

Regarding the Sub-Inspector post, the Court held that higher posts involve executive and statutory powers (investigation, law and order), requiring stricter standards of integrity.

The Court noted that the petitioner deliberately left the disclosure column blank, and an employer has the right to assess suitability for such sensitive roles regardless of the acquittal.

It held that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement as a Constable with 25% back wages and all consequential benefits because his termination was disproportionate.

Conversely, his claim for the post of Sub-Inspector was rejected due to the deliberate suppression of information in the verification form for that specific recruitment.