The respondent was selected for the post of Grade-II Constable after he qualified the written test. Upon his selection, his antecedents were inquired into and in that connection an exercise for verification of his character and other antecedents was undertaken. In the discreet inquiry conducted for the purpose of the aforesaid verification, it was revealed that the respondent was involved in a criminal case registered as case crime no. 392 of 1997 for offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 506(II) of Indian Penal Code. The respondent was the third accused in the said case. He was acquitted in the said case by the Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 19.02.2001 but these facts were not disclosed by him. (Para 3)
The issue which has given rise to this appeal is that whether the respondent is guilty of suppression of material fact with regard to his involvement in the above criminal case so as to disentitle him to employment. (Para 5)
The above order was challenged by the respondent by means of a writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed but in writ appeal the judgment and order of the Learned Single Judge was set aside and the writ appeal was allowed on the reasoning that the respondent was acquitted from the criminal case much before the verification and therefore, the respondent rightly thinking that his involvement in the criminal case is of no relevance bona fidely failed to mention about the same and as such suppression of this information cannot be considered to be willful or intentional so as to deprive him of service pursuant to his selection. (Para 7)
In the case at hand, though the respondent may be eligible for appointment but since he has not disclosed the complete information with regard to his involvement in a criminal case, wherein he might have been acquitted earlier even before verification, he cannot escape the guilt of suppressing the material information as required by column 15 of the verification roll. Keeping in mind that the respondent was a candidate for recruitment to a disciplined force, the non-disclosure of the information of his involvement in the criminal case and subsequent acquittal therefrom cast a serious doubt upon his character and the antecedents which is sufficient enough to disentitle him from employment. (Para 16)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023 STPL(Web) 377 SC
[2023 INSC 944]
Director General Of Police Tamilnadu, Mylapore Vs. J. Raghunees
Civil Appeal No. 1183 of 2012-Decided on 20-10-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-STPLWeb-377-SC.pdf
