Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on February 22, 2024 said that there cannot be a 'hard and fast' and a 'cut and dried rule' that, in all circumstances, non-disclosure of a criminal case in the verification form is fatal for a candidate's employment, even after his acquittal.

"Broad-brushing every non-disclosure as a disqualification, will be unjust and the same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the ground realities obtaining in this great, vast and diverse country," a bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and K V Vishwanathan said.

The court said each case will depend on the facts and circumstances that prevail thereon, and the court will have to take a holistic view, based on objective criteria, with the available precedents serving as a guide. 

"It can never be a one size fits all scenario," the bench said.

The court allowed an appeal filed by Ravindra Kumar against the Allahabad High Court's single and division bench's judgments denying him any relief. The appellant was aggrieved with the cancellation of his appointment in 2005 to the post of Constable, PAC, Uttar Pradesh for non disclosure of a criminal case of 2004 in which he was acquitted.

The local SHO, Village head and the Superintendent of Police, Deoria had found his character as "excellent" despite the criminal case.

The HC's single bench dismissed his plea, saying the petitioner has suppressed material information on involvement in a criminal case and the subsequent acquittal will not absolve him.

The division bench also said if a person swears a false affidavit at the time of enrollment, he is not fit to be enrolled in the disciplined service.

In his submission before the bench, his counsel said there was no willful concealment and at the time of submitting of the application form, there was no criminal case pending. He was acquitted much before filing the affidavit.

The UP government said the appellant made a false representation, and he along with two others were visited with the cancellation.

After examining case laws, the bench enumerated various factors like the nature of the office, the timing and nature of the criminal case; the overall consideration of the judgment of acquittal; the nature of the query in the application/verification form the contents of the character verification reports; the socio economic strata of the individual applying; the other antecedents of the candidate; the nature of consideration and the contents of the cancellation/termination order, that are some of the crucial aspects which should enter the judicial verdict in adjudging suitability and in determining the nature of relief to be ordered.

In the instant case, the bench said "No doubt, the multiple columns in the verification affidavit, questions were asked from him in different permutations and combinations. He must have been in a deep dilemma as there was an imminent prospect of losing his employment."

Among other factors, the bench said, "Most importantly, we find from the verification documents... stated that his character was good, that no complaints were found against him and that his general reputation was good."

In the case, the court found that the order of cancellation on April 12, 2005 did not even follow the mandate prescribed in Clause 4 of the Form of verification of character, which stated, "The character of a candidate for direct appointment must be such as to render him suitable in all respects for employment in the service or post to which he is to be appointed. It would be the duty of the appointing authority to satisfy itself on this point.”

The bench directed to appoint the appellant in service on the post of Constable with all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits but without arrears of salary.