Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Onkar Chand Rayka vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 15 December, 2017
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3760 / 2017
Onkar Chand Rayka S/o Narayan Lal, Aged About 30 Years, By
Caste Rayka, Resident of Village Chouhali, Post- Kakroliya Ghati,
Tehsil- Kotadi, District- Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through the Secretary, Home Department,
Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director General of Police, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Arjun Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Ms.Shweta Bohra for Mr.Anil Bissa
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 15/12/2017
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred with the following prayers:
"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, record of the case may be called for and by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Constable and to provide him appointment on the post of Constable with all the consequential and monetary benefits.
Any other appropriate order/relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly, (2 of 5) [CW-3760/2017] also be passed in favour of the petitioner."
2. The recruitment in question for the post of Constable (General) and Constable (Driver) was conducted by the respondents in pursuance of the advertisement dated 14.07.2013. The petitioner while undergoing the selection process stood at serial No.18 amongst finally selected candidates, but was not given appointment on account of FIR No.38/2009 lodged against him at Police Station Kachhola, Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 447, 341 and 323/34 IPC. However, it is shown from the reply filed by the respondents as well as the record that during investigation, no case was found to be made out against the petitioner.
3. The petitioner continued to represent before the respondents informing them about status of the case and also the final judgment of the learned court below dated 29.05.2012, which on record as Annexure-6. As an outcome of the FIR, other accused persons, who were named, have been given benefit of probation. However, it is clear that no case was found to be made out against the present petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, stated that the pendency of the FIR was to be mentioned in the form by the petitioner, and thus, it was a clear case of concealment.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that in the present facts, the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.20525/2011 (3 of 5) [CW-3760/2017] (Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 21.07.2016) shall apply, wherein the following guidelines have been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court:
"30. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus:
(1) Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.
(2) While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.
(3) The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
(4) In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted:-
(a) In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore (4 of 5) [CW-3760/2017] such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.
(b) Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.
(c) If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.
(5) In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
(6) In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.
(7) In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
(5 of 5) [CW-3760/2017] (8) If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
(9) In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form. (10) For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such case action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.
(11) Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."
6. Thus, in light of the aforementioned precedent law, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner and grant him appointment, if he is found to be fit, according to the aforesaid guidelines. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of sixty days from today.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. Skant/-