Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has ruled that non-disclosure of minor criminal cases, particularly those later quashed or compounded, are not fatal to appointment in government jobs and do not automatically disqualify a candidate from employment.

A Single judge bench of Justice D.K. Singh, held: “Non-disclosure of two minor cases, which were later on quashed and closed, one by the High Court and another by paying the fine, would not itself make the petitioner unsuitable for the post of Driver,” while setting aside the termination notice and remitting the matter for reconsideration by the competent authority.

The court delivered the verdict while hearing the petitioner’s challenge to his termination letter. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver Mechanical Transport (DVRMT) OG in the General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF) on February 17, 2022, under the OBC category. However, during police verification, authorities discovered that he had previously been involved in two criminal cases.

The petitioner was charged under Sections 452, 294, 325, and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), but the case was later quashed by the High Court on July 7, 2022. Another case accused the petitioner of obstructing traffic during a temple festival under Sections 143, 147, 188, and 283 IPC. The case was later compounded upon payment of a fine.

The Commanding Officer (Respondent No. 2) issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on September 7, 2022, questioning why his services should not be terminated under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. On October 4, 2022, his termination order was issued, citing the suppression of material facts regarding past criminal cases.

The petitioner argued that the cases were minor, did not involve moral turpitude, and were either quashed or settled. It was further contended that non-disclosure should not be fatal to his employment, as the offences were committed during his student years and related to college union activities.

Opposing the petitioner, the respondents argued that the petitioner failed to disclose the pending criminal cases at the time of his appointment, justifying his termination as the petitioner had misled the authorities by not reporting his involvement in these cases.

The court noted, “the authority did not consider the fact that the alleged offences were committed by the petitioner when he was a student, and the nature of the offences were not serious but trivial in nature. Nowhere has the authority recorded a finding that nondisclosure of the offences which were subsequently quashed and compounded involve the moral turpitude of the petitioner.”

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Avtar Singh vs Union Of India (2016), which held that “young people often commit indiscretions and such indiscretions can often be condoned.” The court highlighted that the petitioner was involved in the alleged offences when he was young and involved in the activities of the student union, ruling that “Every non-disclosure cannot be treated to be fatal to the appointment to the post of Driver in the respondent.”

 

Cause Title: Harilal S v Union of India [WP(C) NO. 17573 OF 2023]

Appearance: For the Petitioner- Advocates C.Rajendran, B.Gopalakrishnan, R.S.Sreevidya, Manu M.; For the Respondents- Advocates K.S.Prenjith Kumar and Dayasindhu Shreehari (CGC)