Telangana High Court
K. Narender vs The Chairman, And Another on 20 June, 2023
Author: P.Madhavi Devi
Bench: P.Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.No. 769 of 2021
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus by directing the respondent No.1 to re-consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Training Reserve Sub-Inspector (TSSP) as per his provisional selection by declaring the impugned Memorandum of the respondent No.1 vide Rc.No.103/Rectt/Genl.1/2019 dated 3.12.2019, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 3.12.2019 of the respondent No.1 and to direct the respondents to take necessary steps for selection/appointment of the petitioner as SCT-RSI (TSSP) as per his provisional selection and send him for training along with the next batch of candidates and to pass such other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the respondent No.1 issued Notification vide Rc.No.89/Rect./Admn.1/018, dated 31.05.2018 for recruitment to the various posts including the post of Stipendiary Cadet 2 PMD,J W.P.No. 769 of 2021 Trainee Reserved Sub-Inspector (TSSP). The petitioner had applied for the same and had also passed the test conducted by the respondent No.1. However, during the verification of documents, it was found that the petitioner had suppressed the information that he was involved in Crime No.10 of 2019, under Sections 447, 448, 324 r/w 34 of IPC of PS.Siddapur of Nagarkurnool District, while filling up the attestation form. Therefore, it was decided to cancel the petitioner's provisional selection to the post and accordingly showcause notice dated 21.10.2019 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner filed reply dated 26.10.2019 stating that the complaint was a false complaint against the petitioner and the petitioner was not in the village at the time of the incident and that there was no involvement of the petitioner in the crime. However, the respondent No.1 rejected the provisional selection of the petitioner and challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the crime was registered against the petitioner and 36 others in the village and was politically motivated. It was submitted that the petitioner was neither in the village at the time of incident nor 3 PMD,J W.P.No. 769 of 2021 was involved in any criminal activity at any point of time and that subsequently on 09.03.2019 at the request of the defacto complainant, the case was referred to the Lok Adalat and was closed. It is submitted that the case was closed much prior to the date of filling up the attestation form and the petitioner was under the bonafide belief that only pending cases were to be mentioned in the attestation form and therefore he did not refer to the same. He further submitted that subsequently, when the notification was issued for the post of Police Constable, the petitioner had mentioned about the criminal case in the attestation form. Therefore, he submitted that non-mentioning of a criminal case in the attestation form was a bonafide mistake and was not intentional and the charges against the petitioner in the said criminal case have nothing to do with regard to the moral turpitude, but were minor offences. He placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others1 in support of his contention. Therefore, he seeks a direction to the respondent to re-consider the case of the petitioner for 1 2016 (8) SCC 471 4 PMD,J W.P.No. 769 of 2021 appointment to the post of TSSP and to send him for training along with the next batch of candidates.
4. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, however submitted that the involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case was supposed to have been intimated by the petitioner while filling up the attestation form and suppression of such information itself makes the petitioner liable for non-consideration of his candidature. He further submitted that submission of details in the attestation form for the post of Police Constable was much later to the notification issued for the post of Inspector and therefore, the same may not be considered as an explanation for a bonafide mistake. He also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Another Vs. Anil Kanwariya2, wherein it was held that for failure to disclose the criminal antecedents, candidate loses credibility and trustworthiness and therefore, such a person need not be appointed. He submitted that this decision has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. 2 (2021) 10 SCC 136 5 PMD,J W.P.No. 769 of 2021 Mohd.Ismail in W.P.No.13128 of 2011, wherein it was held that suppression of facts disentitles a candidate from being considered for appointment of Police Constable, since the Police Department is highly disciplined force and of paramount importance in the society. He therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on records, this Court finds that the copy of the attestation form furnished by the petitioner has been filed along with the counter affidavit and at Column No.11 it is noticed that the information sought for was whether the petitioner was involved in any criminal case and not with regard to any pendency of criminal case. The petitioner was therefore required to give the necessary information while filling up the attestation form. Subsequent disclosure of the criminal case during the selection process for the post of Police Constable would be immaterial as far as selection for the post of SCT RSI is concerned.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others (cited supra), has prescribed 6 PMD,J W.P.No. 769 of 2021 certain guidelines in such cases and the guidelines are as under:
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.
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. The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
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 : -
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 such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.
Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. 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 7 PMD,J W.P.No. 769 of 2021 candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.
(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 cases 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.
7. Thus, from the above guidelines, it is seen that it is for the appointing authority to consider the nature of the suppression and take a decision about the same. Further in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Another Vs. Anil Kanwariya (cited supra), it has held that the verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the candidate is suitable to the post under the State and on account of his antecedents, if the appointment authority finds that it is not desirable to 8 PMD,J W.P.No. 769 of 2021 appoint a person to a disciplined force, it cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the precedents on the issue to hold that the question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of the employee who at the initial stage of employment i.e., while submitting the declaration/verification and/ or applying for the post made false declaration and/or not disclosed and/ or suppressed material facts of having been involved in a criminal case and if the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him and that choice/option as to whether to continue or not to continue such an employee should always be given to the employer and that the employee cannot claim the appointment and or to continue in service as a matter of right.
8. In the case before this Court, it is a case of non-disclosure of material facts and whether such suppression was bonafide or not and whether the alleged offences were minor are to be considered by the appointing authority.
9. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the petitioner cannot be directed to be re-consider by the 9 PMD,J W.P.No. 769 of 2021 respondents in view of the above non-disclosure of the information about his involvement in a criminal case.
10. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI Date: 20.06.2023 bak 10 PMD,J W.P.No. 769 of 2021 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI W.P.No. 769 of 2021 Dated: 20.06.2023 bak