Supreme Court of India
RAVINDRA KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 131
- Decided
- 22 February 2024
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- K MAHESHWARI
Holding
The cancellation of the appellant's selection was unjustified; non‑disclosure of an acquitted case, absent material adverse factors, does not warrant cancellation, and the order was quashed.
Summary
Ravindra Kumar applied for a constable post in February 2004 and was later implicated in a criminal case, which he was acquitted of in September 2004. He filed a character verification affidavit in October 2004 stating that no criminal case had ever been registered against him. The State cancelled his selection in April 2005, alleging that he concealed the earlier case and filed a false affidavit. The Supreme Court examined whether non‑disclosure of an acquitted case, where the candidate was otherwise found to have good character by police and local authorities, warranted cancellation. Relying on the principles laid down in Avtar Singh and other precedents, the Court held that the cancellation was neither fair nor reasonable and that each case must be assessed holistically. Consequently, the order of cancellation was set aside and the appellant was directed to be appointed as constable, without entitlement to back wages but with full notional benefits.
Issues considered
- Whether the State was justified in cancelling the appellant's selection on the ground of alleged non‑disclosure of an acquitted criminal case in the verification affidavit
- Whether the appellant is entitled to relief and appointment despite the alleged false statement
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 324, s. 352, s. 504
Subjects
Service LawRecruitmentSelectionEmploymentNon-disclosure of a criminal caseVerification in employmentHolistic view based on objective criteria
Judgment
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 722 : 2024 INSC 131
Ravindra Kumar
v.
State of U.P. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5902 of 2012)
22 February 2024
[J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
There was a non-disclosure of a criminal case (in which the
candidate was acquitted) in the verification form of the employment.
The State cancelled the selection of the appellant. Was the State
justified in cancelling the selection of the appellant.
Headnotes
Service Law – Recruitment – Selection – Non-disclosure of a
criminal case in verification – Appellant applied for the post
of constable – After submitting application, he was embroiled
in a criminal case – He cleared exam – In the criminal case,
appellant was acquitted – After being selected, the appellant
submitted affidavit that no criminal case was ever registered
against him – His selection was cancelled vide letter dated
12.04.2005 as appellant had concealed the offence and filed
false affidavit:
Held: On the date of the application, there was no criminal case
pending and there was no suppression in the application form –
The verification documents after noticing the criminal case and
the subsequent acquittal stated that his character was good,
that no complaints were found against him and that his general
reputation was good – The SHO, who forwarded the report to the
Superintendent of Police after reiterating the contents of the report
observed that appellant was acquitted and no appeal was filed –
The SHO certified the character of the candidate as excellent and
that he was eligible to do Government Service under the State
Government – The Superintendent of Police, in his letter to the
Commandant, endorsed the report and reiterated that the character
of the candidate was excellent – In the instant case, the Appointing
Authority has mechanically held selection as irregular and illegal
because the appellant had furnished an affidavit with incorrect facts
– On applying the broad principles set out in para 93.7 of Satish
* Author
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 723
Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. & ORS.
Chandra Yadav, the order of cancellation dated 12.04.2005 is neither
fair nor reasonable – Clause 9 (i.e. if any fact is concealed in the
affidavit by the candidate, his candidature is liable for cancellation)
of the recruitment notification has to be read in the context of the
law laid down in the cases of the Supreme Court – Broad-brushing
every non-disclosure as a disqualification, will be unjust and the
same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the ground
realities – Each case will depend on the facts and circumstances
that prevail thereon, and the court will have to take a holistic view,
based on objective criteria, with the available precedents serving
as a guide – Thus, the order dated 12.04.2005 is quashed and
set aside – The respondents are directed to appoint the appellant
in service on the post of Constable. [Paras 29 and 30]
Case Law Cited
Commissioner of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar,
[2011] 3 SCR 964 : (2011) 4 SCC 644; Pawan Kumar
vs. Union of India and Another, [2022] 7 SCR 928 :
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 532; Mohammed Imran vs.
State of Maharashtra and Others, (2019) 17 SCC 696;
Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India and Others,
[2022] 10 SCR 537 : (2023) 7 SCC 530 – relied on.
Director General of Police, Tamilnadu, Mylapore
vs. J. Raghunees, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1379 –
distinguished.
Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, [2016] 7
SCR 445 : (2016) 8 SCC 471 – referred to.
Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others, [2011] 10
SCR 506 : (2011) 14 SCC 709; Morris v. Crown Office,
(1970) 2 QB 114 – referred to.
List of Keywords
Service Law; Recruitment; Selection; Employment; Non-disclosure
of a crimal case; Verification in employment; Holistic view based
on objective criteria.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5902 of 2012
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.2010 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in SA No. 896 of 2005
724 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
P. Choudhury, Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Nishant Bishnoi, Ms. Srishti
Prabhakar, Ankit Choudhury, R. K. Singh, Nivedit Singh, Advs. for
the Appellant.
Ms. Garima Prashad, A.A.G., Ms. Ruchira Goel, Advs. for the
Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. The vexed question is back again. Is it a hard and fast and a cut
and dried rule that, in all circumstances, non-disclosure of a criminal
case (in which the candidate is acquitted) in the verification form is
fatal for the candidate’s employment? We think not and it ought not
to be so too. Fortunately, we have a judicial chorus supporting our
view. Each case will turn on the special facts and circumstances.
We have endeavoured to analyse the applicable precedents and
have followed those line of cases, which have a striking similarity
to the facts at hand.
Facts of the case:
2. Ravindra Kumar (the appellant), on 12.02.2004, applied for the post
of Constable. His record was unblemished. Five days after submitting
the application, i.e. on 17.02.2004, he was embroiled in a criminal
case for offences punishable under Sections 324, 352 and 504 Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), which he claims was a false case. He
cleared the written exam and the interview. Earlier he had cleared
the physical efficiency test too.
3. In the meantime, the criminal case took an interesting turn as by
the judgment dated 13.09.2004, the appellant was acquitted. At
that criminal trial, the informant PW-1 Srikant, who according to the
prosecution, was allegedly injured in the incident on account of injuries
allegedly inflicted by the appellant and by Vijendra, Ishwar Dayal
and Radhey Shyam, turned hostile. The son of the informant, PW-2
Ram Gulam with whom according to the prosecution, the accused
party was quarreling, till PW-1 Srikant intervened and allegedly
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 725
Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. & ORS.
became subject to physical attack, also turned hostile. Ram Gulam
clearly deposed that he could not identify any of the accused. The
witnesses even stated that the Daroga Ji (Station House Officer)
did not record their statement. In the cross-examination, they also
stated that there was a big crowd at the occurrence and as such
they could not identify the assailants. Insofar as Section 504 IPC
was concerned which deals with intentional insult with the intent to
provoke breach of peace, both the parties have filed a compromise
memo, which was accepted by the Court. In view of the above, they
were acquitted of all the charges.
4. The Appellant, after being selected, was required to submit an
Affidavit disclosing criminal antecedents, if any. The Appellant
submitted the affidavit on 30.10.2004, wherein, he inter alia, stated
that no criminal case, cognizable or non-cognizable, has ever been
registered against him.
5. Thereafter, he was asked to report for training and when he reported,
he was not sent for training on the ground that there was a character
verification pending. Subsequently, on 12.04.2005, he was given the
following letter cancelling his selection:
“It is to inform that you have been selected on the post
of Recruit Constable PAC by the Selection Committee,
8th Battalion PAC, Bareilly after the examination. After
selection, you submitted affidavit dated 30.10.2004, in
which, you have mentioned that no criminal case/case,
cognizable or non cognizable, has never been registered
against you and no challan and police investigations are
pending against you. On getting made your character
verification from the Superintendent of Police of your
Home District Deoria, this fact has come in light that a
Crime No.95/04 under Section 324/504 and 352 I.P.C.
was registered against you at the Police Station - Gauri
Bazar, District Deoria discharged you from the charge in
question on 13.09.2004.
It is clear from the above that you have concealed the
above offence and filed false affidavit. Therefore, due to
producing false affidavit, your selection on the post of
Recruit Constable in PAC is hereby cancelled.”
726 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
6. The case of the Department was that, under Clause 9 of the
recruitment notification dated 20.01.2004, if any fact is concealed in
the affidavit by the candidate, his candidature is liable for cancellation.
Clause 9, being relevant, is extracted herein below:
“9. Character Verification:
Character verification of all the candidates found eligible
as above will be done as per the government rules
prevailing at that time. In character verification, eligible
candidates will have to furnish an affidavit in the prescribed
format on a non-judicial stamp paper duly attested by a
public notary. The format of the affidavit will be made
available by the Selection Committee to the candidates
finally selected in the interview. If it is found through the
character verification or any other means that facts have
been concealed in the affidavit by the candidate, not only
will the selection of the candidate be cancelled but legal
action can also be taken against him. No candidate/person/
organization will have the right to protest in any court in
case the selection is cancelled due to false facts being
mentioned in the affidavit or not providing the prescribed
required information.”
7. The multiple Clauses of the Affidavit, verified on 30.10.2004, namely,
Clause 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 read as under:
“4. That to the best of my knowledge, no criminal case/
matter (cognizable or non-cognizable) has ever been
registered against me, nor has the police challaned me
in any such criminal case, nor is any police investigation
pending against me. NO
5. That I have never been arrested in any criminal case
(cognizable or non-cognizable) nor have I ever surrendered
in any such criminal case. NO
6. That the details of the criminal cases which have been
registered against me or in which I have been challaned or
which were/are pending against me in the court or under
investigation by the police are as follows (if the information
is nil then write ‘zero’)
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 727
Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. & ORS.
7. That the details of the criminal cases pending against
me in any court and in which I was punished or acquitted
or discharged are as follows (if the information is nil then
write ‘zero’) ZERO
11. That if anything mentioned in the application is found
to be false or the facts are found to be concealed and
if I am immediately unconditionally terminated from the
Uttar Pradesh Police Service and also given statutory
punishment, then it will be acceptable to me.”
8. In the meantime, the police verification proceeded. On 09.12.2004,
the report of Police Station, Gauri Bazar, District Deoria stated that
while a case in crime no. 95 of 2004 under Sections 324, 352 and
504 IPC was registered against the candidate, the candidate was
acquitted and there was no appeal filed against the acquittal order.
Further, there was no other case pending in any court nor was any
case registered against the candidate at the police station. The SHO
further mentioned as follows:
“The character of the candidate is excellent. As per my
consent the candidate is eligible to do government service
under the State Government”
Moreover, the Gram Pradhan also seconded the “excellent” character
of Appellant in the Character Certificate issued by him. The Character
Certificate issued by the Gram Pradhan reads as under:-
“CHARACTER CERTIFICATE
It is certified that Ravindra Kumar s/o Late Pardesi Prasad,
is a permanent resident of Village Bagapar, Post Katora,
Police Station Gauri Bazar, District Deoria (Uttar Pradesh).
I know and recognize him very well. His character is
excellent. I wish him a bright future.
Signature and seal
Gram Pradhan”
9. Thereafter, on 10.12.2004, the Superintendent of Police, Deoria,
whilst taking note of the report of Police Station, Gauri Bazar, District
Deoria, informed the Commandant, 8th Battalion, PAC., Bareilly that,
in his opinion, the candidate was eligible to do government service
728 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
under the State Government. The relevant portion of the letter dated
10.12.2004 is reproduced as follows-
“….The character of the candidate is excellent. Therefore,
the candidate Shri Ravindra Kumar s/o Shri Pardesi Ram
r/o Bagapar, Post Kathaura, Police Station Gauri Bazar,
District Deoria is eligible to do government service under
the State government.”
10. The State of U.P., in support of the cancellation letter dated
12.04.2005, relies on a letter dated 31.12.2004 written on behalf
of the Inspector General of Police, PAC to the Commandant, 8th
Battalion, PAC wherein it was stated, that with regard to the cases
of the appellant and two others, who were found to be acquitted
in criminal cases during character verification and who had not
mentioned the factum of those cases in the affidavit, it was to be
ensured that action as per the rules regarding submission of false
affidavit be taken against those candidates. The State has also
placed on record a letter of 07.01.2005 by the Inspector General of
Police to all the Commandants of PAC Battalion, U.P. stating that
with regard to submission of false affidavit, action should be taken
as per the instructions issued. In the cases of candidates who had
mentioned the facts related to the charges registered against them
in the affidavit, action should be taken as per their discretion and
the Government orders.
11. The State has also placed on record the “Form of verification of
character” setting out that it was necessary to verify the character
and antecedents before appointment of any candidate. The Verifying
Authority was to report directly if found eligible. If the candidate is
ineligible according to report then the report was to be sent to the
District Magistrate. The District Magistrate was to call the candidate
and record his statement and write down his opinion as to what he
considers about the candidate and also send the statement of the
candidate. In the note appended, it was even set out that, even a
conviction need not by itself involve the refusal of a certificate of good
character. The circumstances of the conviction should be taken into
account and if they involve no moral turpitude or association with
crimes of violence or with a movement which has as its object, the
overthrow by violent means of Government as by law established
in Union of India then mere conviction need not be regarded as
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 729
Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. & ORS.
a disqualification. It is also mentioned in Clause 4 of the Form of
Verification of Character as follows:-
“4. It is further requested that the following general rules
regarding conduct of candidates for government jobs
should also be kept in mind.
The character of a candidate for direct appointment must
be such as to render him suitable in all respects for
employment in the service or post to which he is to be
appointed. It would be the duty of the appointing authority
to satisfy itself on this point.”
Proceedings in the High Court:-
12. Aggrieved by the letter dated 12.04.2005 of the cancellation of
selection, the appellant filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39418 of
2005 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The appellant
argued that there was no deliberate or willful concealment on his
part as he has been acquitted in the criminal case. The Ld. Single
Judge, vide judgement dt. 16.05.2005, dismissed the Writ Petition
holding that the petitioner has suppressed material information with
regard to his involvement in a criminal case at the time of filling up
the form. It was held that the subsequent acquittal of his involvement
in the criminal case will not absolve him from the fact that he had
suppressed material information.
13. The Appellant, being aggrieved by the Judgement of Ld. Single Judge,
filed an appeal bearing Special Appeal No. 896/2005. The Division
Bench, vide impugned judgment dated 29.10.2020, dismissed the
Special Appeal holding that if a person swears a false affidavit at
the time of enrollment, he is not fit to be enrolled in the disciplined
service. It was further held that the act of swearing false affidavit on
its own, is an act, which touches upon the conduct and character
of the person. The suppression of the material information from the
employer does not get vindicated by the subsequent acquittal in the
case. Moreover, the appointing authority was not required to go into
the details of the allegations in the criminal case, the evidence led in
the trial and the reasons for which the criminal court had convicted
or acquitted the candidate.
14. The Appellant, being aggrieved of the Judgment dated 29.10.2010,
is before us in the instant appeal.
730 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Contentions:-
15. Before us Mr. Premashis Choudhary, learned advocate for the
appellant, contended that there was no willful concealment; that
at the time of submitting of the application form on 12.02.2004,
there was no criminal case pending against the appellant; and
at that stage there was no requirement to furnish any affidavit.
The appellant was acquitted in the criminal case on 13.09.2004
i.e. much prior to the filing of his affidavit on 30.10.2004. Since
no criminal case was pending at the time of filing of affidavit,
the appellant was under a bona fide belief that there was no
requirement to disclose. It is further contended that as such there
was no intention to deceive.
16. On the other hand, Ms. Garima Prashad, learned Additional Advocate
General and Ms. Ruchira Goel, learned Standing Counsel for the
State have contended that the appellant made a false representation
in Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 of his Affidavit. Further, along with the
appellant, two other persons, who were found to have been given
false statements, have also been visited with the cancellation.
Moreover, the present case is covered in favour of the State, by the
judgment of this Court in case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India
and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, particularly, para 38.1, 38.2, 38.3
and 38.11 thereof.
Questions for consideration:-
17. In the above background, the questions that arise for consideration
are:-
i. Was the State justified in cancelling the selection of the appellant,
vide its order of 12.04.2005?
ii. To what relief, if any, is the appellant entitled to?
Discussion and findings:
18. As the facts reveal, admittedly on 12.02.2004, when the appellant
applied for the post of Constable, there was no criminal case
registered or pending. Five days after submitting the application, no
doubt, he was embroiled in a criminal case which has since resulted
in an acquittal by the trial court, vide order dated 13.09.2004, and no
appeal was filed against the same. There is no dispute that under
Clause 9 of the recruitment notification dated 20.01.2004, he was
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 731
Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. & ORS.
required to furnish an Affidavit in the format given by the Selection
Committee. It is also specifically mentioned in Clause 9 that if it is
found that facts have been concealed in the Affidavit the selection
of the candidate is liable for cancellation. As will be seen from
paras 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the affidavit, information (though somewhat
repetitive) was sought. It did obligate the candidate to disclose any
criminal case which was registered against him; any arrest made
in the past, the details of the cases which were pending and, most
importantly, the details of acquittals were also called for. It is also
an undisputed fact that the appellant said ‘No’ to each of these
queries. The appellant’s explanation is that since he was acquitted,
he bona fide believed that he was only obliged to give details of
any pending proceedings.
19. The State had taken the position that Clause 9 of the recruitment
notification and the queries in the affidavit were quite clear and that
there being suppression, the cancellation was perfectly justified.
20. The law on this issue is settled by a three-Judge Bench of this Court
in Avtar Singh (Supra). Paras 34, 35, 36 & 38, which sets out the
conclusions, are extracted herein below:-
“34. No doubt about it that verification of character and
antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess
suitability and it is open to employer to adjudge antecedents
of the incumbent, but ultimate action should be based
upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant
aspects.
35. Suppression of “material” information presupposes that
what is suppressed that “matters” not every technical or
trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration
of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order
to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of
employee. Though a person who has suppressed the
material information cannot claim unfettered right for
appointment or continuity in service but he has a right
not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has
to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due
regard to facts of cases.
36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon
the nature of post, higher post would involve more
732 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed
service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature
of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be
considered by authorities concerned considering post/
nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised
on due consideration of various aspects.
38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to
explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of
the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion
thus:
38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as
to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal
case, whether before or after entering into service must be
true and there should be no suppression or false mention
of required information.
38.2. While passing order of termination of services or
cancellation of candidature for giving false information,
the employer may take notice of special circumstances
of the case, if any, while giving such information.
38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the
government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the
employee, at the time of taking the decision.
38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of
involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal
had already been recorded before filling of the application/
verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge
of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate
to the case may be adopted:
38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had
been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age
or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have
rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the
employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression
of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.
38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which
is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature
or terminate services of the employee.
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 733
Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. & ORS.
38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case
involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious
nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean
acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given,
the employer may consider all relevant facts available as
to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to
the continuance of the employee.
38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration
truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still
has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be
compelled to appoint the candidate.
38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in
character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal
case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances
of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate
subject to decision of such case.
38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with
respect to multiple pending cases such false information by
itself will assume significance and an employer may pass
appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating
services as appointment of a person against whom multiple
criminal cases were pending may not be proper.
38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the
candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have
adverse impact and the appointing authority would take
decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service,
holding departmental enquiry would be necessary before
passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the
ground of suppression or submitting false information in
verification form.
38.10. For determining suppression or false information
attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague.
Only such information which was required to be specifically
mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked
for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer
the same can be considered in an objective manner while
734 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
addressing the question of fitness. However, in such
cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or
submitting false information as to a fact which was not
even asked for.
38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or
suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable
to him.”
(Emphasis supplied)
21. As would be clear from Avtar Singh (Supra), it has been clearly
laid down that though a person who has suppressed the material
information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment, he or
she has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily. The exercise of
power has to be in a reasonable manner with objectivity and
having due regard to the facts. In short, the ultimate action should
be based upon objective criteria after due consideration of all
relevant aspects.
22. Avtar Singh (Supra) also noticed the judgment in Commissioner
of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644.
In Sandeep Kumar (supra), this Court set out the story of the
character “Jean Valjean” in Victor Hugo’s novel Les Miserables,
where the character was branded as a thief for stealing a loaf of
bread for his hungry family. It also discussed the classic judgment
of Lord Denning in Morris v. Crown Office, (1970) 2 QB 114 and
concluded as follows:-
“10… …
In our opinion, we should display the same wisdom as
displayed by Lord Denning.
11. As already observed above, youth often commits
indiscretions, which are often condoned.
12. It is true that in the application form the respondent
did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case
under Sections 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention
this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically
be disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious
offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more
lenient view should be taken in the matter.”
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 735
Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. & ORS.
Thereafter, in Avtar Singh (supra) dealing with Sandeep Kumar
(supra), this Court observed as under:
“24… …
This Court has observed that suppression related to a
case when the age of Sandeep Kumar was about 20
years. He was young and at such age people often commit
indiscretions and such indiscretions may often be condoned.
The modern approach should be to reform a person instead
of branding him a criminal all his life. In [Morris v. Crown
Office, (1970) 2 QB 114 : (1970) 2 WLR 792 (CA)] , the
observations made were that young people are no ordinary
criminals. There is no violence, dishonesty or vice in them.
They were trying to preserve the Welsh language. Though
they have done wrong but we must show mercy on them
and they were permitted to go back to their studies, to their
parents and continue the good course.”
23. In Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2011) 14 SCC 709,
another case noticed and discussed in Avtar Singh (Supra) arising
out of near identical facts and construing a similar clause in the
verification form, this Court, while granting relief, held as follows:-
“9. We have carefully read the Government Order dated
28-4-1958 on the subject “Verification of the character
and antecedents of government servants before their first
appointment” and it is stated in the government order that
the Governor has been pleased to lay down the following
instructions in supersession of all the previous orders:
“The rule regarding character of candidate for appointment
under the State Government shall continue to be as follows:
The character of a candidate for direct appointment must
be such as to render him suitable in all respects for
employment in the service or post to which he is to be
appointed. It would be the duty of the appointing authority
to satisfy itself on this point.
xxx xxx
12. On a reading of the order dated 18-7-2002 of the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate it would show that the
736 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
sole witness examined before the court, PW 1, Mr Akhilesh
Kumar, had deposed before the court that on 2-12-2000
at 4.00 p.m. children were quarrelling and at that time
the appellant, Shailendra and Ajay Kumar amongst other
neighbours had reached there and someone from the crowd
hurled abuses and in the scuffle Akhilesh Kumar got injured
when he fell and his head hit a brick platform and that
he was not beaten by the accused persons by any sharp
weapon. In the absence of any other witness against the
appellant, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted
the appellant of the charges under Sections 323/34/504 IPC.
On these facts, it was not at all possible for the appointing
authority to take a view that the appellant was not suitable
for appointment to the post of a police constable.
13. The order dated 18-7-2002 of the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate had been sent along with the report
dated 15-1-2007 of Jaswant Nagar Police Station to the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, but it appears
from the order dated 8-8-2007 of the Senior Superintendent
of Police, Ghaziabad, that he has not gone into the question
as to whether the appellant was suitable for appointment
to service or to the post of constable in which he was
appointed and he has only held that the selection of the
appellant was illegal and irregular because he did not
furnish in his affidavit in the pro forma of verification roll
that a criminal case has been registered against him.
14. As has been stated in the instructions in the Government
Order dated 28-4-1958, it was the duty of the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, as the appointing
authority, to satisfy himself on the point as to whether the
appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of a
constable, with reference to the nature of suppression and
nature of the criminal case. Instead of considering whether
the appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of
male constable, the appointing authority has mechanically
held that his selection was irregular and illegal because
the appellant had furnished an affidavit stating the facts
incorrectly at the time of recruitment.
xxx xxx
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 737
Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. & ORS.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal, set
aside the order of the learned Single Judge and the
impugned order of the Division Bench and allow the writ
petition of the appellant and quash the order dated 8-8-
2007 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad.
The appellant will be taken back in service within a period
of two months from today but he will not be entitled to any
back wages for the period he has remained out of service.
There shall be no order as to costs.”
Ram Kumar (supra) was also a case of cancellation of
selection to the post of Constable.
24. More recently in Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India and Another,
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 532, involving appointment to the post of
Constable in Railway Protection Force and setting aside the order
of discharge due to alleged suppression in the verification form, this
Court, after noticing Avtar Singh (Supra) held as under:-
“11. This cannot be disputed that the candidate who intends
to participate in the selection process is always required
to furnish correct information relating to his character and
antecedents in the verification/attestation form before and
after induction into service. It is also equally true that the
person who has suppressed the material information or
has made false declaration indeed has no unfettered right
of seeking appointment or continuity in service, but at least
has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has
to be judiciously exercised by the competent authority in
a reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard
to the facts of the case on hand. It goes without saying
that the yardstick/standard which has to be applied with
regard to adjudging suitability of the incumbent always
depends upon the nature of post, nature of duties, effect
of suppression over suitability to be considered by the
authority on due diligence of various aspects but no hard
and fast rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard.
13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by
this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false
information regardless of the fact whether there is a
conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/
738 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from
service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect
of suppression of material/false information involving in a
criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider
all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to
antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and
the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking
appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the
employee into service. What being noticed by this Court
is that mere suppression of material/false information in a
given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily
discharge/terminate the employee from service.
19. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The
judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated
17th November, 2015 and the order of discharge dated 24th
April, 2015 and dated 23rd December, 2021 are hereby
quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to
reinstate the appellant in service on the post of Constable
on which he was selected pursuant to his participation
in reference to employment notice no. 1/2011 dated 27th
February, 2011. We make it clear that the appellant will not
be entitled for the arrears of salary for the period during
which he has not served the force and at the same time
he will be entitled for all notional benefits, including pay,
seniority and other consequential benefits, etc. Necessary
orders shall be passed within a period of one month from
today. No costs.”
25. In Mohammed Imran vs. State of Maharashtra and Others,
(2019) 17 SCC 696, no doubt, a case where a candidate made the
disclosure of criminal case, this Court speaking through Navin Sinha,
J. made the following telling observation which resonates with the
hard realities of everyday existence :
“5. Employment opportunities are a scarce commodity in
our country. Every advertisement invites a large number
of aspirants for limited number of vacancies. But that may
not suffice to invoke sympathy for grant of relief where the
credentials of the candidate may raise serious questions
regarding suitability, irrespective of eligibility. Undoubtedly,
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 739
Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. & ORS.
judicial service is very different from other services and the
yardstick of suitability that may apply to other services, may
not be the same for a judicial service. But there cannot be
any mechanical or rhetorical incantation of moral turpitude,
to deny appointment in judicial service simplicitor. Much will
depend on the facts of a case. Every individual deserves
an opportunity to improve, learn from the past and move
ahead in life by self-improvement. To make past conduct,
irrespective of all considerations, an albatross around the
neck of the candidate, may not always constitute justice.
Much will, however depend on the fact situation of a case.”
26. We have also kept in mind the recent judgment of this Court in
Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India and Others, (2023) 7
SCC 530 and the broad principles set out by this Court in para 93,
especially, paras 93.1, 93.3 & 93.7. Even the broad principles set out
therein recognize that each case should be scrutinized thoroughly by
the public employer concerned and the Court is obliged to examine
whether the procedure of enquiry adopted by the authority concerned
was fair and reasonable. Avtar Singh (Supra) in para 38.2 has
held that while passing the order of cancellation of candidature for
giving false information, the employer may take notice of special
circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.
Further, in para 38.4.3 of Avtar Singh (Supra) the principle that, in
case of suppression or false information of involvement of criminal
case, where acquittal has already been recorded, the employer can
still consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents and may
take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.
We have read and understood the broad principles laid down in
Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) with the following crucial para in
Avtar Singh (Supra):
“35. Suppression of “material” information presupposes that
what is suppressed that “matters” not every technical or
trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration
of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order
to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of
employee. Though a person who has suppressed the
material information cannot claim unfettered right for
appointment or continuity in service but he has a right
740 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has
to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due
regard to facts of cases.”
27. We have also examined the judgment in Director General of
Police, Tamilnadu, Mylapore vs. J. Raghunees, (2023) SCC
OnLine SC 1379 and we find that the case of the appellant is
more aligned with the facts in the judgment of this Court in Pawan
Kumar (supra), Sandeep (supra) and Ram Kumar (supra).
Hence, we find that the judgment in J. Raghunees (supra) is
clearly distinguishable.
28. The nature of the office, the timing and nature of the criminal case;
the overall consideration of the judgement of acquittal; the nature
of the query in the application/verification form; the contents of
the character verification reports; the socio economic strata of the
individual applying; the other antecedents of the candidate; the nature
of consideration and the contents of the cancellation/termination
order are some of the crucial aspects which should enter the judicial
verdict in adjudging suitability and in determining the nature of relief
to be ordered.
29. Having discussed the legal position above, it is necessary to set out
certain special features that obtain in the case at hand.
i. The appellant hails from the small village Bagapar, P.O. Kataura,
Police Station Gauri Bazar, District Deoria, U.P.
ii. On the date of the application, there was no criminal case
pending and there was no suppression in the application form.
iii. The criminal case was registered when he was 21 years of age
for the offences very similar to the one referred to in Sandeep
Kumar (supra) and even in the criminal case he was acquitted.
iv. No doubt, the multiple columns in the verification affidavit,
questions were asked from him in different permutations and
combinations. He must have been in a deep dilemma as there
was an imminent prospect of losing his employment.
v. Most importantly, we find from the verification documents fairly
and candidly made available by the learned Additional Advocate
General, that the verification report after noticing the criminal
case and the subsequent acquittal stated that his character was
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 741
Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. & ORS.
good, that no complaints were found against him and that his
general reputation was good.
vi. Not stopping there, the person who visited the spot even wished
him a bright future in the report.
vii. The SHO, Gauri Bazar Police Station, who forwarded the report
to the Superintendent of Police after reiterating the contents of
the report observed that he was acquitted and no appeal was
filed. Further, there was no other case pending and nor was
any case registered against the candidate.
viii. The SHO certified the character of the candidate as excellent
and that he was eligible to do Government Service under
the State Government. He annexed the report of the Police
Station as well as the report of the Gram Pradhan and the
Court documents.
ix. The Superintendent of Police, in his letter to the Commandant,
endorsed the report and reiterated that the character of the
candidate was excellent.
x. While examining whether the procedure adopted for enquiry
by the authority was fair and reasonable, we find that the
order of cancellation of 12.04.2005 does not even follow the
mandate prescribed in Clause 4 of the Form of verification of
character set out in the earlier part of this judgment. Like it was
found in Ram Kumar (supra) instead of considering whether
the appellant was suitable for appointment, the Appointing
Authority has mechanically held his selection was irregular and
illegal because the appellant had furnished an affidavit with
incorrect facts. Hence, even applying the broad principles set
out in para 93.7 of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra), we find
that the order of cancellation dated 12.04.2005 is neither fair
nor reasonable. Clause 9 of the recruitment notification has
to be read in the context of the law laid down in the cases
set out hereinabove.
30. On the facts of the case and in the backdrop of the special
circumstances set out hereinabove, where does the non- disclosure
of the unfortunate criminal case, (which too ended in acquittal),
stand in the scheme of things? In our opinion on the peculiar facts
of the case, we do not think it can be deemed fatal for the appellant.
742 [2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Broad-brushing every non-disclosure as a disqualification, will be
unjust and the same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to
the ground realities obtaining in this great, vast and diverse country.
Each case will depend on the facts and circumstances that prevail
thereon, and the court will have to take a holistic view, based on
objective criteria, with the available precedents serving as a guide.
It can never be a one size fits all scenario.
Relief:
31. For the reasons set out hereinabove, the appeal is allowed and the
order of the learned Single Judge and the impugned order of the
Division Bench dated 29.10.2010 in Special Appeal No. 896/2005
are set aside. The order of 12.04.2005 of the third respondent,
Commandant 27th Battalion, PAC, Sitapur is quashed and set aside.
The respondents are directed to appoint the appellant in service
on the post of Constable for which he was selected, pursuant to
his participation in reference to the Recruitment Notification dated
20.01.2004. We make it clear that the appellant will not be entitled
for the arrears of salary for the period during which he has not
served the force. At the same time, we direct that the appellant will
be entitled for all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other
consequential benefits. Necessary orders shall be passed within a
period of four weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs.
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan Result of the case:
Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Service Law"Sign in to search