/2022 INSC 0375/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3116 OF 2022
State of Rajasthan & Ors.           ..Appellants
Versus
Chetan Jeff    ..Respondent
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   04.03.2020   passed   by   the   High
Court   of   Judicature   for   Rajasthan   at   Jaipur   Bench   in   D.B.
Special Appeal Writ  No.1479 of 2018 by which the High Court
has   dismissed   the   said   appeal   preferred   by   the   State   of
Rajasthan and has confirmed the judgment and order passed
by the learned Single Judge directing the State to consider the
case   of   the   respondent   herein   ­   original   writ   petitioner   for
1

appointment to the post of Constable (General), the State has
preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present case in a nutshell are as
under:
2.1 Applications   were   invited   by   the   Director   General   of
Police   Rajasthan,   Jaipur   vide   Letter   dated   07.04.2008,   for
recruitment   to   4684   vacant   posts   of   Constable   (General),
Constable (Operator), Constable (Driver) and Constable (Band)
in different Districts/Battalions/Units of Rajasthan Police.  As
per   2008   Recruitment   Notification,   all   interested   candidates
were   required   to   qualify   the   written   test,   physical   efficiency
test,   proficiency   test,   special   qualification   test   and   an
interview   for   securing   appointment   for   different   posts   of
constable.   As  per  paragraph  9(e)  of  the  said  notification,  the
candidates   were   required   to   fill   in   the   correct   information   in
their   application   forms.     It   provided   that   if   the   information
disclosed   in   the   application   form   was   found  to   be  wrong  and
incomplete, such an application form was liable to be rejected
at any stage of the selection process.   The respondent applied
for   the   said   post   and   submitted   the   application   form.     In
column 15 of the Job Application Form dated 26.04.2008 the
respondent   herein   ­   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   original   writ
2

petitioner) had categorically stated that there were no criminal
antecedents   against   him.     He   also   stated   that   there   were   no
pending FIRs or criminal cases against him.  He also enclosed
the   signed   declaration   with   the   application   form   stating   that
the   information   disclosed   in   para   15   of   the   Job   Application
Form   dated   26.04.2008   was   correct   and   there   was   no
concealment of any criminal record by him.
2.2 The   original   writ   petitioner   cleared   the   written   test   as
well   as   the   physical   test.     At   this   stage   it   is   required   to   be
noted   that   as   such,   the   original   writ   petitioner   was   already
facing criminal proceedings in FIR bearing No.458/2007 dated
17.12.2007 registered against him at Police Station, Neem ka
Thana, Sikar for the offences punishable under Sections 143,
341 and 336 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to
as, ‘the IPC’).  However, the same was not disclosed by him in
the   Job   Application   Form.   Thus,   as  such   he  suppressed  the
material   fact   about   pendency   of   the   FIR/Criminal   Case
against him.
2.3 The Superintendent of Police, District Sikar informed the
Superintendent   of   Police,   Hanumangarh   vide   communication
dated 21.08.2008 about the said FIR No.458 of 2007.   Based
upon the said information, the candidature of the original writ
3

petitioner   was   rejected   on   the   ground   that   the   original   writ
petitioner   suppressed   the   material   fact   about   his   criminal
antecedents   in   Column   15   and   made   an   incorrect   statement
in the job application form.
2.4 Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature, the
original   writ   petitioner   preferred   the   writ   petition   before   the
learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   by   way   of   Civil   Writ
Petition   No.10250   of   2008.     It   appears   that   one   another   FIR
bearing   No.102/2012   dated   27.01.2012   was   registered
against   the   original   writ   petitioner   at   Police   Station   Neem   ka
Thana, Sikar for the offences punishable under Sections 147,
148,   149,   452,   380,   352,   427   of   the   IPC.     By   the   judgment
and order dated 30.07.2015, the learned trial Court acquitted
him for the offences under Section 352 read with Section 149
IPC in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
For the offences under Sections 147, 148, 455, 440 read with
Section   149   of   the   IPC   the   original   writ   petitioner   was
acquitted   extending   the   benefit   of   doubt.     However,   the
learned   ACJM   –   I,   Neem   ka   Thana,   Sikar   vide   judgment   and
order   dated   21.01.2016   convicted   the   original   writ   petitioner
for   offences   punishable   under   Sections   341   &   323   read   with
4

Section   34   IPC.     However,   he   was   accorded   benefit   of   the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
2.5 By   the   Judgment   and   Order   dated   12.03.2018,   the
learned   Single   Judge   allowed   the   aforesaid   writ   petition   and
directed   the   State   to   consider   the   case   of   the   original   writ
petitioner for the post of Constable,  inter alia,  on the following
grounds:
“1.     That  the   Parties  failed   to   place   any   material  on
record to  show that  the Respondent suppressed the
information with respect to the criminal antecedents
in   the   column   15   of   the   said   Job   Application   Form
dated 26.04.2008.
2.     That   the   Respondent   in   the   instant   case   was
charged   with   the   offences   which   were   trivial   in
nature  and  the  suppression  of  such  offences  by  the
Respondent   should   have   been   ignored   by   the
Petitioners   herein.     In   order   to   substantiate   the
aforesaid   proposition,   the   Hon’ble   High   Court   relied
upon the judgment in   Avtar Singh versus Union of
India & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471 .
3.   That the judgment dated 01.03.2017 in the case
of   Bhanja   Ram   versus   State   of   Rajasthan   &   Ors.
S.B.   Civil   Writ   Petition   No.6884   of   2008,   applied
squarely   to   the   facts   mentioned   in   the   said   Writ
Petition.”
2.6 The   third   FIR   bearing   No.348/2018   dated   05.09.2018
was   registered   against   the   original   writ   petitioner   at   Police
Station   Neem   ka   Thana,   Sikar   for   the   offences   punishable
under Sections 341 & 323 of the IPC.
5

2.7 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   allowing   the   Civil
Writ   Petition   No.10250   of   2008   and   directing   the   State   to
consider the case of the original writ petitioner for the post of
Constable,   the   State   preferred   the   Writ   Appeal   before   the
Division Bench of the High Court.
2.8 During   the   pendency   of   the   Writ   Appeal,   the   learned
ACJM, Neem  ka Thana, Sikar vide judgment and order dated
09.09.2019   acquitted   the   original   writ   petitioner   for   the
offences   punishable   under   Sections   341   &   323   of   the   IPC   in
view of  the  compromise arrived at  between the  parties  in  FIR
No.348/2018.
2.9 One   another   FIR   bearing   No.505/2018,   dated
20.12.2018   was   registered   at   Neem   ka   Thana,   Sikar   against
the   original   writ   petitioner   for   the   offences   punishable   under
Sections 341, 323, 382, 427 IPC.
2.10 Despite   the   above,   by   the   impugned   Judgment   and
Order dated 04.03.2020, the Division Bench of the High Court
has   dismissed   the   said   appeal   and   has   confirmed   the
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge,   by
which the learned Single Judge directed the State to consider
the case of the original writ petitioner for the appointment as
6

Constable.   That, in the meantime, the original writ petitioner
has   been   charge­sheeted   for   the   offences   punishable   under
Sections  341,  323, 382,  427  of  the  IPC  in  relation   to  the  FIR
No.505/2018 and the trial is pending.
2.11 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court dismissing the writ appeal and confirming the judgment
and   order   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   directing   the
appellant   –   State   to   consider   the   case   of   the   original   writ
petitioner   for   appointment   as   Constable,   the   State   has
preferred the present appeal.
3. We   have   heard   Dr.   Manish   Singhvi,   learned   Senior
Advocate   and   AAG   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   State   of
Rajasthan and Mr. R.K. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the original writ petitioner. 
4. Dr.   Manish   Singhvi,   learned   Senior   Advocate,   has
vehemently   submitted   that   considering   the   criminal
antecedents   which   were   suppressed   by   the   original   writ
petitioner,   both   the   learned   Single   Judge   as   well   as   the
Division  Bench  have committed a grave  error  in  directing  the
appellant   ­   State   to   consider   the   case   of   the   original   writ
petitioner for appointment as a constable.
7

4.1 It   is   contended   by   Dr.   Manish   Singhvi,   learned   Senior
Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   State   of   Rajasthan   that
despite Column 15 of the Job Application Form of the original
writ   petitioner   by   which   he   was   required   to   state   true   and
correct facts of criminal antecedents and despite the fact that
he   was   facing   criminal   prosecution   by   way   of   FIR
No.458/2007, the original writ petitioner suppressed the same
and   did   not   disclose   the   same.     It   is   submitted   that   on   the
contrary in the column of “ whether any criminal case has been
registered against the applicant ?” he said “No”.  
4.2 It   is   submitted   therefore,   when   the   candidate   at   the
initial stage itself did not state the true and correct facts and
as such suppressed the material facts, he is not entitled to be
appointed on the post as Constable. 
4.3 It is submitted that the post of Constable whose duty  is
to maintain law and order, first of all should be honest.   It is
submitted that a candidate who, at the initial stage and before
even   getting   the   appointment   as   a   constable   has   suppressed
the   material   facts   of   having   criminal   antecedents  and   he   has
made  a  false  statement  in  the   application  form.    How   can  he
8

be trusted and be appointed as a Constable?   It is submitted
that   as   such   the   State   was   justified   in   rejecting   his
candidature   as   a   constable.     Reliance   is   placed   upon   the
decisions of this Court in the case of  Avtar Singh   v.   Union of
India,   (2016)   8   SCC   471   as   well   as   Daya   Shankar
Yadav   v.   Union of India, (2010) 14 SCC 103 .  
4.4 It   is   urged   by   Dr.   Manish   Singhvi,   learned   Senior
Advocate for the State that even otherwise and till the Division
Bench   decided   the   writ   appeal,   the   original   writ   petitioner
faced   3   to   4   more   FIRs,   out   of   which,   in   two   cases   he   was
acquitted   by   entering   into   a   compromise   and   in   one   case   he
has been convicted, however has been given the benefit of the
Probation of Offenders Act.   It is submitted that one criminal
case is still pending against him.   That such a person cannot
be   appointed   as   a   constable.     Therefore,   it   is   requested   that
this Court must consider the subsequent events also.
5. Present   appeal   is   opposed   by   Mr.   R.K.   Shukla,   learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioner. 
5.1 It   is   vehemently   submitted   by   Mr.   R.K.   Shukla,   learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioner that
9

having   found   that   the   offences   against   the   original   writ
petitioner   were   trivial   in   nature   and   he   was   acquitted   and   in
one   case   he   has   been   granted   the   benefit   of   Probation   of
Offenders   Act,   both,   the   learned   Single   Judge   as   well   as   the
Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   have   rightly   directed   the
State to consider the case of the original writ petitioner for the
post of Constable.
5.2 It is submitted that when both, the learned Single Judge
as well as the Division Bench have concurred on directing the
State to consider the case of the original writ petitioner for the
post of Constable and by giving cogent reasons, the same may
not   be   interfered   with   by   this   Court   in   exercise   of   powers
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
6. We   have   heard   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the
respective parties at length.
6.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the post on
which   the   writ   petitioner   is   seeking   the   appointment   is   the
post  of  constable.   It cannot be disputed that the duty  of the
constable   is   to   maintain   law   and   order.     Therefore,   it   is
expected   that   he   should   be   honest,   trustworthy   and   that   his
10

integrity is above board and that he is reliable.   An employee
in   the   uniformed   service   presupposes   a   higher   level   of
integrity  as  such  a  person  is  expected  to   uphold  the  law   and
on   the   contrary   any   act   in   deceit   and   subterfuge   cannot   be
tolerated.   In   the   present   case   the   original   writ   petitioner   has
not   confirmed   to   the   above   expectations/   requirements.     He
suppressed the material facts of his criminal antecedents.  He
did   not   disclose   in   the   application   form   that   against   him   a
criminal   case/FIR   is   pending.     On   the   contrary,   in   the
application   form,   he   made   a   false   statement   that   he   is   not
facing   any   criminal   case.     Therefore,   due   to   the   aforesaid
suppression,   his   candidature   came   to   be   rejected   by   the
appropriate   authority.     Despite   the   above,   the   learned   Single
Judge   allowed   the   writ   petitioner   and   directed   the   State   to
consider   the   case   of   the   original   writ   petitioner   for
appointment   as   a   constable   mainly   on   the   ground   that   the
offences   were   trivial   in   nature   and   the   suppression   of   such
offences   should   have   been   ignored.     The   same   has   been
confirmed by the Division Bench. 
11

6.2 The   question   is   not   whether   the   offences   were   trivial   in
nature or not.   The question is one of suppression of material
fact   by   the   original   writ   petitioner   in   respect   of   his   criminal
antecedents   and   making   a   false   statement   in   the   application
form.     If   in   the   beginning   itself,   he   has   suppressed   the
material fact in respect to his criminal antecedents and in fact
made   an   incorrect   statement,   how   can   he   be   appointed   as   a
constable.  How can he be trusted thereafter in future?  How it
is   expected   that   thereafter   he   will   perform   his   duty   honestly
and with integrity? 
6.3 Therefore,   as   such   the   authorities   were   justified   in
rejecting   the   candidature   of   the   respondent   for   the   post   of
constable.
6.4 At   this   stage   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Daya Shankar Yadav (supra)   is required to be referred to. In
paras 14 and 16, it is observed and held as  under:
“14.   Rule   14   of   the   Central   Reserve   Police   Force
Rules,   1955   relevant   in   this   case   relates   to
verification.   Clauses   ( a )   and   ( b )   of   the   said   Rule   are
extracted below:
“ 14.   Verification .—( a )   As   soon   as   a   man   is
enrolled,   his   character,   antecedents,   connections
12

and   age   shall   be   verified   in   accordance   with   the
procedure   prescribed   by   the   Central   Government
from  time to  time.  The verification  roll shall  be sent
to the District Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner of
the District of which the recruit is a resident.
( b )   The   verification   roll   shall   be   in   CRP   Form   25
and   after   verification   shall   be   attached   to   the
character and service roll of the member of the force
concerned.”
The   purpose   of   seeking   the   said   information   is   to
ascertain   the   character   and   antecedents   of   the
candidate so as to assess his suitability for the post.
Therefore,   the   candidate   will   have   to   answer   the
questions  in  these  columns  truthfully   and  fully  and
any   misrepresentation   or   suppression   or   false
statement   therein,   by   itself   would   demonstrate   a
conduct   or   character   unbefitting   for   a   uniformed
security service.
16.   Thus   an   employee   on   probation   can   be
discharged   from   service   or   a   prospective   employee
may   be   refused   employment   :   ( i )   on   the   ground   of
unsatisfactory   antecedents   and   character,   disclosed
from   his   conviction   in   a   criminal   case,   or   his
involvement   in   a   criminal   offence   (even   if   he   was
acquitted   on   technical   grounds   or   by   giving   benefit
of   doubt)   or   other   conduct   (like   copying   in
examination)   or   rustication   or   suspension   or
debarment   from   college,   etc.;   and   ( ii )   on   the   ground
of   suppression   of   material   information   or   making
false   statement   in   reply   to   queries   relating   to
prosecution or conviction for a criminal offence (even
if   he   was   ultimately   acquitted   in   the   criminal   case).
This   ground   is   distinct   from   the   ground   of   previous
antecedents   and   character,   as   it   shows   a   current
dubious   conduct   and   absence   of   character   at   the
time of making the declaration, thereby making him
unsuitable for the post.”
13

6.5   In   State   of   A.P.   v.   B.   Chinnam   Naidu,   (2005)   2   SCC
746 ,   this   Court   has   observed   that   the   object   of   requiring
information   in   the   attestation   form   and   the   declaration
thereafter   by   the   candidate   is   to   ascertain   and   verify   the
character and antecedents to judge his suitability to enter into
or   continue   in   service.   It   is   further   observed   that   when   a
candidate   suppresses   material  information   and/or   gives  false
information,   he   cannot   claim   any   right   for   appointment   or
continuance in service.
6.6 In  Devendra Kumar   v.   State of Uttaranchal, (2013) 9
SCC 363 , while joining  the training, the employee was asked
to submit an affidavit giving certain information, particularly,
whether   he   had  ever   been   involved   in  any   criminal   case.   The
employee   submitted   an   affidavit   stating   that   he   had   never
been   involved   in   any   criminal   case.   The   employee   completed
his   training   satisfactorily   and   it   was   at   this   time   that   the
employer in pursuance of the process of character verification
came   to   know   that   the   employee   was   in   fact   involved   in   a
criminal   case.   It   was   found   that   the   final   report   in   that   case
had   been   submitted   by   the   prosecution   and   accepted   by   the
14

Judicial  Magistrate  concerned.  On  the  basis  of  the  same, the
employee   was   discharged   abruptly   on   the   ground   that   since
he was a temporary government servant, he could be removed
from   service   without   holding   an   enquiry.   The   said   order   was
challenged   by   the   employee   by   filing   a   writ   petition   before   a
Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   which   was   dismissed.   The
Division   Bench   upheld   that   order,   which   was   the   subject­
matter of appeal before this Court. Dismissing the appeal, this
Court observed and held that the question is not whether the
employee is suitable for  the  post.  The pendency  of a criminal
case/proceeding is different from suppressing the information
of   such   pendency.   The   case   pending   against   a   person   might
not   involve   moral   turpitude   but   suppressing   of   this
information   itself   amounts   to   moral   turpitude.   It   is   further
observed   that   the   information   sought   by   the   employer   if   not
disclosed as required, would definitely amount to suppression
of   material   information   and   in   that   eventuality,   the   service
becomes   liable   to   be   terminated,   even   if   there   had   been   no
further   trial   or   the   person   concerned   stood
acquitted/discharged.
15

6.7 In the case of  Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P., (2012)
8   SCC   748 ,   in   para   29.4,   this   Court   has   observed   and   held
that   “a   candidate   having   suppressed   material   information
and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue
in   service   and   the   employer,   having   regard   to   the   nature   of
employment   as   well   as   other   aspects,   has   the   discretion   to
terminate   his   services.     In   para   29.6,   it   is   further   observed
that   the   person   who   suppressed   the   material   information
and/or   gives   false   information   cannot   claim   any   right   for
appointment   or   continuity   in   service.     In   para   29.7,   it   is
observed   and   held   that   “the   standard   expected   of   a   person
intended   to   serve   in   uniformed   service   is   quite   distinct   from
other   services   and,   therefore,   any   deliberate   statement   or
omission regarding a vital information can be seriously viewed
and   the   ultimate   decision   of   the   appointing   authority   cannot
be faulted.
6.8   In   Daya Shankar Yadav   v.   Union of India, (2010) 14
SCC 103 , this Court had an occasion to consider the purpose
of   seeking   the   information   with   respect   to   antecedents.   It   is
observed and held that the purpose of seeking the information
16

with   respect   to   antecedents   is   to   ascertain   the  character   and
antecedents of the candidate so as to assess his suitability for
the   post.   It   is   further   observed   that   when   an   employee   or   a
prospective   employee   declares   in   a   verification   form,   answers
to   the   queries   relating   to   character   and   antecedents,   the
verification   thereof   can   lead   to   any   of   the   following
consequences: (SCC pp. 110­11, para 15)
“ 15 .   …   ( a )   If   the   declarant   has   answered   the
questions   in   the   affirmative   and   furnished   the
details   of   any   criminal   case   (wherein   he   was
convicted  or  acquitted  by  giving  benefit  of  doubt for
want   of   evidence),   the   employer   may   refuse   to   offer
him   employment   (or   if   already   employed   on
probation, discharge him from service), if he is found
to be unfit having regard to the nature and gravity of
the offence/crime in which he was involved.
( b )   On   the   other   hand,   if   the   employer   finds   that
the   criminal   case   disclosed   by   the   declarant   related
to offences which were technical, or of a nature that
would   not   affect   the   declarant's   fitness   for
employment,   or   where   the   declarant   had   been
honourably   acquitted   and   exonerated,   the   employer
may   ignore   the   fact   that   the   declarant   had   been
prosecuted   in   a   criminal   case   and   proceed   to
appoint him or continue him in employment.
( c )   Where   the   declarant   has   answered   the
questions   in   the   negative   and   on   verification   it   is
found that the answers were false, the employer may
refuse   to   employ   the   declarant   (or   discharge   him,   if
already   employed),   even   if   the   declarant   had   been
cleared   of   the   charges   or   is   acquitted.   This   is
because   when   there   is   suppression   or   non­
disclosure   of   material   information   bearing   on   his
character,   that   itself   becomes   a   reason   for   not
employing the declarant.
17

( d ) Where the attestation form or verification form
does   not   contain   proper   or   adequate   queries
requiring   the   declarant   to   disclose   his   involvement
in any criminal proceedings, or where the candidate
was   unaware   of   initiation   of   criminal   proceedings
when   he   gave   the   declarations   in   the   verification
roll/attestation   form,   then   the   candidate   cannot   be
found   fault   with,   for   not   furnishing   the   relevant
information. But if the employer by other means (say
police   verification   or   complaints,   etc.)   learns   about
the   involvement   of   the   declarant,   the   employer   can
have recourse to courses ( a ) or ( b ) above.”
Thereafter, it is observed and held that an employee
can   be   discharged   from   service   or   a   prospective
employee may be refused employment on the ground
of   suppression   of   material   information   or   making
false   statement   in   reply   to   queries   relating   to
prosecution or conviction for a criminal offence (even
if he was ultimately acquitted in the criminal case).
6.9   In   State   of   M.P.   v.   Abhijit   Singh   Pawar,   (2018)   18
SCC   733 ,   when   the   employee   participated   in   the   selection
process,   he   tendered   an   affidavit   disclosing   the   pending
criminal   case   against   him.   The   affidavit   was   filed   on   22­12­
2012.   According   to   the   disclosure,   a   case   registered   in   the
year   2006   was   pending   on   the   date   when   the   affidavit   was
tendered. However, within four days of filing such an affidavit,
a   compromise   was   entered   into   between   the   original
complainant   and   the   employee   and   an   application   for
compounding   the   offence   was   filed   under   Section   320   CrPC.
18

The   employee   came   to   be   discharged   in   view   of   the   deed   of
compromise. That thereafter the employee was selected in the
examination   and   was   called   for   medical   examination.
However, around the same time, his character verification was
also   undertaken   and  after  due  consideration   of  the  character
verification report, his candidature was rejected. The employee
filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging rejection
of   his   candidature.   The   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High
Court   of   Madhya   Pradesh   allowed   the   said   writ   petition.   The
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge
directing   the   State   to   appoint   the   employee   came   to   be
confirmed   by   the   Division   Bench   which   led   to   appeal   before
this Court. After considering a catena of decisions on the point
including   the   decision   in   Avtar   Singh   v.   Union   of   India,
(2016)   8   SCC   471 ,   this   Court   upheld   the   order   of   the   State
rejecting the candidature of the employee by observing that as
held   in   Avtar   Singh   (supra) ,   even   in   cases   where   a   truthful
disclosure   about   a   concluded   case   was   made,   the   employer
would   still   have   a   right   to   consider   antecedents   of   the
19

candidate   and   could   not   be   compelled   to   appoint   such
candidate.
6.10   After reproducing and/or reconsidering para 38.5 of the
decision   in   Avtar   Singh   (supra) ,   in   Abhijit   Singh   Pawar
(supra) , in para 13, this Court observed and held as under:  
“ 13 .   In   Avtar   Singh   [ Avtar   Singh   v.   Union   of   India ,
(2016) 8 SCC 471, though this Court was principally
concerned with the question as to non­disclosure or
wrong   disclosure   of   information,   it   was   observed   in
para   38.5   that   even   in   cases   where   a   truthful
disclosure   about   a   concluded   case   was   made,   the
employer   would   still   have   a   right   to   consider
antecedents   of   the   candidate   and   could   not   be
compelled to appoint such candidate.”
6.11 Recently,   in   the   case   of   Rajasthan   Rajya   Vidyut
Prasaran   Nigam   Limited   v.   Anil   Kanwariya,   (2021)   10
SCC   136 ,   this   Court   had   an   occasion   to   consider   the
submission   on   behalf   of   an   employee   whose   services   were
terminated   on   the   ground   of   filing   a   false   declaration   to   the
effect that neither a criminal case is pending against him nor
has he been convicted by any Court of law, that subsequently
he has been granted the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation
of   Offenders  Act   and  therefore  his   services   ought   not   to   have
20

been   terminated.    This  Court  has   observed  in   paras  13  &  14
as under:
“13.   Even   otherwise,   subsequently   getting   the
benefit   of   Section   12   of   the   1958   Act   shall   not   be
helpful to the respondent inasmuch as the question
is about filing a false declaration on 14­4­2015 that
neither any criminal case is pending against him nor
has   he   been   convicted   by   any   court   of   law,   which
was   much   prior   to   the   order   passed   by   the   learned
Sessions Court granting the benefit of Section  12 of
the 1958 Act. As observed hereinabove, even in case
of   subsequent   acquittal,   the   employee   once   made   a
false   declaration   and/or   suppressed   the   material
fact of pending criminal case shall not be entitled to
an appointment as a matter of right.
14.   The   issue/question   may   be   considered   from
another angle, from the employer's point of view. The
question   is   not   about   whether   an   employee   was
involved   in   a   dispute   of   trivial   nature   and   whether
he   has   been   subsequently   acquitted   or   not.   The
question   is   about   the   credibility   and/or
trustworthiness   of   such   an   employee   who   at   the
initial stage of the employment i.e. while submitting
the   declaration/verification   and/or   applying   for   a
post   made   false   declaration   and/or   not   disclosing
and/or   suppressing  material  fact  of   having  involved
in   a   criminal   case.   If   the   correct   facts   would   have
been   disclosed,   the   employer   might   not   have
appointed   him.   Then   the   question   is   of   TRUST .
Therefore,   in   such   a   situation,   where   the   employer
feels that an  employee  who at the initial   stage itself
has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the
material   facts   and/or   suppressed   the   material   facts
and   therefore   he   cannot   be   continued   in   service
because   such   an   employee   cannot   be   relied   upon
even   in   future,   the   employer   cannot   be   forced   to
continue   such   an   employee.   The   choice/option
whether   to   continue   or   not   to   continue   such   an
employee   always   must   be   given   to   the   employer.   At
the cost of repetition, it is observed and as observed
hereinabove in catena of decision such an employee
21

cannot claim the appointment and/or continue to be
in service as a matter of right.”
7. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
cases,   it   cannot   be   said   that   the   authority   committed   any
error in rejecting the candidature of the original writ petitioner
for the post of constable in the instant case.  
8. Even   otherwise   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that
subsequently   and   during   the   proceedings   before   the   learned
Single Judge as well as the Division Bench, there are three to
four   other   FIRs   filed   against   the   original   writ   petitioner
culminating into criminal trials and in two cases he has been
acquitted   on   the   ground   of   compromise   and   in   one   case
though   convicted,   he   has   been   granted   the   benefit   of
Probation   of   Offenders   Act.     One   more   criminal   case   is
pending   against   him.     Therefore,   the   original   writ   petitioner
cannot be appointed to such a post of constable.
9. In   view   of   the   above   discussion   and   for   the   reasons
stated   above,   both,   the   learned   Single   Judge   as   well   as   the
Division   Bench   have   erred   in   directing   the   State   to   consider
the   case   of   the   respondent   for   appointment   as   a   constable.
22

The   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   is
unsustainable,   both,   on   facts   as   well   as   on   law.   Under   the
circumstances, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside
and is accordingly quashed and set aside.   It is held that the
candidature of the respondent – original writ petitioner for the
post of constable had been rightly rejected by the appropriate
authority.   Present appeal is accordingly allowed. In the facts
and   circumstances   of   the   case,   there   shall   be   no   order   as   to
costs. 
…………………………………J.
                  (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
 (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
May 11, 2022.
23