State of Rajasthan vs Chetan Jeff Case
State of Rajasthan vs Chetan Jeff Supreme Court Case Judgment 2022
Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले
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 subjectmatter 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 nondisclosure 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
Comments
Post a Comment