Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Thus, the specific charge against the petitioner was that, the petitioner, "at no point of time", informed the High Court about the pendency of the said criminal case which amounts to a grave misconduct on his part. In other words, neither at the time of appointment as JAA in 2000 nor at the time of promotion to the post of SAA in 2007 or thereafter till the High Court was informed, he never furnished any information about his arrest or the pendency of the case and trial.

26. As regards this, the plea of the petitioner as can be seen from the second reply to the show cause notice on conclusion of the enquiry was that, at the time of his initial appointment, necessary police verification was made and no adverse report was made against him in the said report. According to him, if the pendency of any such criminal case was shown in the police verification report, perhaps he would not have been appointed. On the other hand, he further makes the claim that the police verification report was not Page No.# 13/42 brought on record in course of the enquiry which would have supported his claim that there was no such adverse report.

27. In the opinion of this Court, such pleas of the petitioner are sterile. The police verification obviously will be based on information they have in their records and or be based on the information that may be furnished by the petitioner himself. If the police verification had not properly reflected the records, it may be either due to their lapses which may be bona fide or mala fide, of which this Court, is not inclined to examine in this proceeding. At the same time, if the police had verified from the petitioner himself, then certainly he did not inform the police. Whatever may be the case, without going any further as to the reason why the said fact was not reflected in the police verification report, the question is, does it have the effect of effacing this fact that the petitioner was charged of certain criminal offence before he entered service? In the opinion of this Court, it certainly does not.

32. This Court under the aforesaid circumstances, would unhesitatingly hold that the petitioner deliberately concealed the disturbing facts of his arrest, trial and conviction in a criminal case and kept the authorities of the High Court in dark. His plea that the police verification report did not reflect the aforesaid facts does not absolve him from the responsibility to inform the Registry. If the police verification report does not reflect the said fact, it does not mean that such an incident had not taken place.

obligation to disclose it under Rule 59 as well as Rule 41. Thus, even if it is a case where such information was not asked for at the time of initial appointment on compassionate ground as claimed by the petitioner, yet there was a duty to disclose it after he joins service as required under Rule 59 and Rule 41. He cannot take shelter under the police verification report, which did not contain a comprehensive and correct portrayal of his antecedents. As far as suppression of the aforesaid facts are concerned, it was clearly attributable to him and it was his responsibility to bring to the notice of the High Court irrespective of the police verification report.