Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(Emphasis Supplied)

4. Submissions of the respondent 4.1. The appellant is involved in a criminal case relating to serious offence of domestic violence of attempt to murder her sister-in-law under Section 307 IPC which was concealed by her in the bio-data form dated 18th June, 2012. The appellant is accused No.4 in the criminal case under DV Act. The serious crime of attempt to murder under DV Act is not a trivial offence/case as claimed by the appellant.

4.2. The appellant's contention that the proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act are civil in nature is not relevant. The judgments cited by the appellant that the proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act are civil in nature are also not relevant because the respondent has rejected the appellant's appointment on the ground of making a false declaration in the bio-data form.

4.3. Even if the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act were not a criminal case, the appellant was required to disclose it. The technical defence that the case under DV Act was not criminal but civil in nature is neither tenable nor relevant since the Court dealing with DV Act is a Court of Law, it is not necessary to decide whether it is a criminal case or civil case.

4.4. The concealment of pendency of case under DV Act is a material fact which resulted in the cancellation of the appointment of the appellant in terms of Clause 20 of the ‗Terms and conditions' of provisional offer of appointment.

4.5. The reliance was placed on Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P., 2012(8) SCC 748, in which the appellant therein was selected for the post of a Constable in police department and he submitted a declaration at the time of appointment that he was not involved in any criminal case. However, it came to the notice of the respondent that the appellant was involved in a criminal case for the offence under Sections 147, 323, 336 IPC pending at the time of his selection though he was subsequently acquitted. The appointment of the appellant was terminated for concealment of his involvement in a criminal case which was challenged by a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court declined to interfere with the order of termination against which the appellant approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the previous cases namely, Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., (2011) 14 SCC 709; State of W.B. v. Sk. Nazrul Islam, (2011) 10 SCC 184; Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644; Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India, (2010) 14 SCC 103; Kamal Nayan Mishra v. State of M.P., (2010) 2 SCC 169; Union of India v. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen, (2008) 11 SCC 314; R. Radhakrishnan v. Director General of Police, (2008) 1 SCC 660; Deptt. of Home Secy., A.P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu, (2005) 2 SCC 746; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav, (2003) 3 SCC 437; Bank of Baroda v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, (1999) 2 SCC 247; Commissioner of Police v. Dhaval Singh, (1999) 1 SCC 246; Delhi Admn. v. Sushil Kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605; Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 100 and held that verification of character and antecedents is one of the most important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable for the post. The Supreme Court further held that the authorities invested with the responsibility of appointing constables are under duty to verify the antecedents of candidates to find out whether he is suitable for the post of constable and so long as the candidate has not been acquitted in criminal case, he cannot held to be suitable for appointment for the post of constable. The Supreme Court further held that the concealment of a material fact by a candidate at the time of seeking appointment renders his appointment liable to be cancelled. However, considering different view taken by coordinate Benches, the Supreme Court referred the issue to the larger Bench and the said reference is still pending.

6. Whether any criminal case was pending against the appellant at the time of submitting the bio-data form?

6.1. The respondents have cancelled the offer of appointment of the appellant on the sole ground that she has suppressed the pendency of a criminal case under the DV Act relating to a serious offence of domestic violence of attempt to murder her sister-in-law. According to the respondents, the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act is a criminal case. The question which therefore, arises for consideration is - What is the meaning of the term ―criminal case‖?