Rajpal Yadav vs U O I (R P F ) And Ors on 13 January, 2017
" The above conclusion is buttressed by the fact that the
petitioner had nothing to gain from suppressing the factum
of his having been prosecuted in a criminal case in which
he had been acquitted. The disclosure of the factum of
involvement in a criminal case in which the petitioner was
acquitted could not even by any stretch of imagination
have entailed his being found unsuitable for government
service in view of reasons analogous to Section 12 of the
Act of 1958. If a conviction for all offence not grave in
nature and following probation cannot entail a disability in
law, how can acquittal entail one ? I am of the view that a
suppression of fact can S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION
NO.10108/2015 (Kamal Singh Meena Vs. Union of India &
Ors.) (16) entail finding of unsuitability of a candidate in
government service on that count only in the event the
suppression was beneficial. This leads to the conclusion
that an irrelevant misstatement of fact as in the instant
case, cannot result in the declaration of an applicant as
unsuitable for government service. The upshot of the
(12 of 13)
[CW-16862/2012]
aforesaid discussion is that the impugned order of
discharge dated 19.06.2015 has been passed without any
application of mind and is founded upon an incorrect report
of the District Magistrate, Alwar based on the report of the
Superintendent of Police, Alwar that the petitioner was
facing a criminal trial when in fact the petitioner had been
acquitted in the said trial based on a compromise / the
complainant and his witnesses turning hostile as reflected
in the judgment dated 06.04.2010. I am of the
considered view that the Additional Chief Security
Commissioner, North EASt Frontier Railway, Maligaon,
has erred in exercise of his discretion in holding a trivial
incorrect statement necessarily entailing the petitioner's
discharge. The conclusion of this Court is also founded
upon reason analogous to Section 12 of the Probation of
Offenders Act 1958 (hereinafter "the Act of 1958")
whereunder even a conviction for a less offence with
sentence of less than 7 years of imprisonment cannot be
a disqualification when the accused is allowed the benefit
of probationer the Act of 1958.