Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.73 seconds)Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Subhash Chand Alias Subhash Chander vs State Of Haryana And Another on 14 January, 2010
ii) that the filling of word `NO in the concerned column of the application and attestation form was a bonafide mistake and an error of judgment of the applicant, as he was not going to get any benefit by concealing his involvement in a case in which he had been clearly acquitted on merits. Reliance is placed on the Judgement of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Subhash v. State of Haryana & Anr., 1990 (4) SLR 525 to contend that non-disclosure of information relating to a criminal case in which he stands acquitted is no ground for withholding appointment.
Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors vs Ram Ratan Yadav on 26 February, 2003
12. The facts in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya (supra), relied on by the respondents, differ substantially from the present case as in that case the employee had concealed the fact of his involvement in a criminal case which was still pending against him at the time of furnishing the requisite information, whereas in the present case there was no case pending at the time of filling up of the attestation and application forms and more over there was a clear acquittal on merits over 7 years prior to the application being made. Of course, as pointed out by the respondents, the seriousness of the allegation in the case is not really relevant as the applicants candidature has not been cancelled because of his involvement in the criminal case but because of non-disclosure of the same which in their view renders him unfit for a police job. The contention of the respondents is not without merit. One aspect would be the nature of involvement in the case, the seriousness of the offence but the other aspect is with regard to the credibility of the individual and his character and antecedents in this regard. When a candidate, despite a clear warning in bold letters in the beginning of the attestation form, does not disclose facts or particulars of his involvement in a case, and has no reasonable explanation for the omission, then the respondents are justified in taking action on the same as it impinges upon the credibility and reliability of the candidate. In this context, the respondents action in canceling the candidature cannot be considered to be arbitrary or unjustified nor is there any legal infirmity in the action of the respondents.
Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. vs Robin Singh on 25 August, 2010
13. However, the learned counsel for the applicant has [in his rejoinder) in this connection brought to our notice a recent case of High Court of Delhi in the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Vs. Robin Singh (W.P. (C ) No.2068/2010, decided on 25.08.2010) [171 (2010) DLT 705 (DB)]. Some relevant observations of the High Court in this judgment are extracted below:-
1