Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: selection process completed in Vakil Kumar Meena vs Director, Export Inspection Council Of ... on 16 April, 2015Matching Fragments
Judgments relied upon by the respondent
25. The respondent has referred to and relied upon Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal (2013) 9 SCC 363 and Sushil Kumar Singhal v. Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, (2010) 8 SCC 573.
26. In Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal (supra), the petitioner therein obtained appointment as constable by concealing his involvement in a criminal case and also submitted a false affidavit. The department discovered the involvement of the petitioner in the criminal case by police verification whereupon he was discharged from service. The Supreme Court held that suppression of material information amounts to moral turpitude and, therefore, upheld his discharge from service. In the present case, the appellant has voluntarily disclosed the relevant information relating to his involvement in a criminal case prior to the completion of the selection process and this Court is satisfied that the non-disclosure at the first instance was inadvertent and not deliberate/wilful. In that view of the matter, the principles laid down in Devendra Kumar (supra) do not support the respondent‟s case.
Judgments relied upon by the learned Single Judge
28. The learned Single Judge has referred to and relied upon Nidhi Kaushik v. Union of India, (2013) 203 DLT 722 and Arun v. District & Sessions Judge, W.P. (C) No. 5880/2012 decided on 26th July, 2013. In Nidhi Kaushik (supra), there was no concealment of a criminal case by the candidate and, therefore, Nidhi Kaushik (supra) was set aside by Division Bench in appeal vide judgment dated 26th May, 2014 reported as (2014) 212 DLT 5. In Arun (supra), the appellant had procured the appointment by concealment of a criminal case which was discovered upon verification by the employer. That apart, the employee had also submitted a false affidavit before the appointing authority. Arun (supra) would not apply to the present case as the appellant has voluntarily disclosed the relevant information relating to the involvement in a criminal case before the completion of selection process. In Arun (supra) as well as Nidhi Kaushik (supra), the learned Single judge has relied upon Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav, (2003) 3 SCC 437 and A.P. Public Service Commission v. Koneti Venkateswarulu, (2005) 7 SCC 177 in which the candidates had secured the appointment by concealing the involvement in criminal cases and therefore, the Supreme Court held that a person who obtains employment by suppression of fact does not deserve public employment. In Jainendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 8 SCC 748, the Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of deliberate suppression of facts by candidates/appointees in disciplined forces, laid down principles relating to the consequences of concealment of a criminal offence by a candidate. The Supreme Court held that information with respect to the involvement of a candidate in a criminal case affects the character and antecedents of the candidate which is one of the most important criteria in deciding whether the selected candidate is suitable for the post.
* * * Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it."
30. In Arun(supra), Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (supra) and A.P. Public Service Commission (supra), the candidates had secured the employment by concealing the involvement in a criminal case whereas the appellant, in the present case, had voluntarily disclosed the relevant information relating to his involvement in the criminal case before the completion of the selection process and we have accepted that there was no deliberate concealment by the appellant. In that view of the matter, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (supra) and A.P. Public Service Commission (supra) and Jainendra Singh (supra) would not apply to the present case. This case is squarely covered by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Dhaval Singh(supra) and Sandeep Kumar (supra) and other judgments mentioned above.