Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Om Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 26 February, 2018
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1135 / 2018
Om Prakash S/o Shri Kesha Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Village Hapas, Post Patoda, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Department of
Home, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Inspector General of Police, Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Bikaner.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Vinod Choudhary
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Anil Bissa
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 26/02/2018
1. This writ petition has been preferred with the following prayers:
"1. The record of the case may kindly be called for.
2. The respondents may kindly be directed to grant appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable in pursuance of the Rajasthan Police Constable Recruitment-2012 with all consequential and notional benefits.
3. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall be satisfied if the respondent re-consider (2 of 4) [CW-1135/2018] the case in light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.20525/2011 (Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 21.07.2016), in which following directions were given:
"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 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.
(3 of 4) [CW-1135/2018]
(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.
(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 (4 of 4) [CW-1135/2018] 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 suppressioveri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."
3. Learned counsel for the respondent agrees with the precedent law but opposes the petition on the count that the selection process is of 2012 and vacancies might have been filled.
4. In light of the aforementioned precedent law, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's case in light of the precedent law of Avtar Singh (Supra). However, the respondents while making such consideration shall be entitled to deny the petitioner on the ground of non-availability of the vacancy.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. sudheer