Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2455 (RAJ)

State Of Rajasthan v. Mahendra Singh Rathore

2022-09-15

KULDEEP MATHUR, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2022
JUDGMENT Kuldeep Mathur, J. - The instant intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved of the order dated 11.02.2019 passed by learned Single Bench of this court whereby the writ petition was allowed directing the respondents (appellants herein) to accord appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable (General) if he is otherwise eligible in the questioned selection process ignoring the pendency of the criminal cases against him however with a condition in the appointment order that the petitioner's services will be terminated in the event of conviction. 2. The respondent-writ petitioner applied for the post of 'Constable (General) Non-TSP' in the category of 'outstanding sports person' pursuant to Advertisement dated 25.05.2018. The respondent-writ petitioner appeared for the written test and Physical Standard Test/Physical Efficiency Test (PST/PET). His name was reflected in the district-wise final selection list, though, no appointment order was issued to the respondent-writ petitioner. The respondent-writ petitioner preferred a writ petition being S.B.C.W. No. 17640/2018 before learned Single Bench of this Court stating inter alia that the respondent-writ petitioner had not indicated pendency of criminal cases against him in the application but had submitted information regarding the same subsequently through representation dated 22.10.2018. The learned Single Bench vide order dated 28.11.2018, disposed of the writ petition directing the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur to decide the fresh representation to be filed by the respondent-writ petitioner for the issues raised in the writ petition keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Anr. v. Dhaval Singh: AIR 1999 SC 2326 and the judgment of this Court in Mukesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan: 2016 (3) WLC 345 within a period of two weeks. The appellant-department in pursuance of order dated 28.11.2018, passed the order dated 06.12.2018 referring to circulars dated 15.07.2016 and 28.03.2017 of the department holding that the petitioner was not entitled to grant of appointment on account of pendency of criminal cases. The respondent-writ petitioner aggrieved by the above mentioned order, filed a writ petition being S.B.C.W. No. 19152/2018 before Single Bench of this Court. Learned Single Bench vide order dated 07.01.2019, directed the appellant-department to pass a fresh order since the order dated 06.12.2018 was not a speaking order. Thereupon, appellant-department passed the order dated 07.02.2019 reiterating its earlier position. The respondent-writ petitioner aggrieved by the above mentioned order, filed a writ petition being S.B.C.W. No. 19152/2018 before Single Bench of this Court. Learned Single Bench vide order dated 07.01.2019, directed the appellant-department to pass a fresh order since the order dated 06.12.2018 was not a speaking order. Thereupon, appellant-department passed the order dated 07.02.2019 reiterating its earlier position. The writ petition preferred against impugned orders denying the respondent-writ petitioner appointment on the post of 'Constable (General) Non-TSP' was allowed vide order dated 11.02.2019 with a direction upon the appellant-department to accord appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable (General) Non TSP if he is otherwise eligible in the questioned selection process ignoring the pendency of the criminal cases against him however with a condition in the appointment order that the petitioner's services would be terminated in the event of conviction and an undertaking in this respect shall be submitted by him. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-department, Shri Manish Vyas submitted that the order dated 07.02.2019 was passed after considering all the issues raised by respondent-writ petitioner in the representation submitted by him. It was further submitted that the information regarding pending criminal cases registered against respondent-writ petitioner was willfully withheld by him in the application form submitted on 29.05.2018. Counsel vehemently urged that the very act of concealing information that there were criminal cases pending against him raises serious questions regarding character of the candidate and therefore, order dated 11.02.2019 passed by the learned Single Bench deserves be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent, Shri Nikhil Dungawat vehemently argued that the order dated 07.02.2019 passed in pursuance of directions of this Court is contrary to settled law as well as judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was further argued that the respondent-writ petitioner on realising the mistake made representation dated 22.10.2018 to the appellants-respondents mentioning the details of criminal cases registered against him. Counsel submitted that by making representation, the information of pending criminal cases had been furnished and can no longer amount to concealment. In support of above-mentioned contentions, reliance was placed on Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1989'). Further reliance was placed on judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Anr. In support of above-mentioned contentions, reliance was placed on Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1989'). Further reliance was placed on judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Anr. v. Dhaval Singh reported in (1999) 1 SCC 246 . 5. Heard submissions advanced at Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 examining the issue of obtaining appointment by misrepresentation in extenso held as under: "So far as the issue of obtaining the appointment by misrepresentation is concerned, it is no more res integra. The question is not whether the applicant 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. In fact, the information sought by the employer if not disclosed as required, would definitely amount to suppression of material information. 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." 7. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for respondent in the case of Dhaval Singh (supra) was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "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 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." 8. In State of Rajasthan v. Chetan Jeff reported in the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "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. In State of Rajasthan v. Chetan Jeff reported in the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "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 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." 9. In the light of the aforesaid facts and enunciation of law by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the respondent-writ petitioner willfully suppressed the vital information regarding registration of criminal case/s against him in the relevant column of the Application Form. The Rule 13 of Rules of 1989 though allows convicts and ex-prisoners to be inducted in police service but does not cover the case of the respondent-writ petitioner, who had suppressed the material fact in respect to his criminal antecedents at the very inception of the recruitment process. Further, it is noticed that respondent-writ petitioner conveyed the fact regarding the pendency of criminal cases registered against him through representation dated 22.10.2018, after the result of written examination on realising that the non-disclosure of the same could act as an impediment to his appointment. In the considered opinion of this Court, concealment with regard to involvement in criminal case/s by the respondent-writ petitioner reflects that he was not honest in furnishing the required details sought by the employer. A candidate desirous of seeking employment in a disciplined police force is expected to carry high moral standards and the expected standard from such person is quite distinct from other services, therefore, any deliberate misstatement or omission in furnishing vital information is to be viewed seriously. A candidate desirous of seeking employment in a disciplined police force is expected to carry high moral standards and the expected standard from such person is quite distinct from other services, therefore, any deliberate misstatement or omission in furnishing vital information is to be viewed seriously. In the present case, the respondent-writ petitioner has failed to meet the above standards and thus, his candidature has rightly been rejected by the appellants-respondents. The impugned order dated 11.02.2019 passed by learned Single Bench is not in conformity with the Supreme Court judgments referred to supra and hence cannot be sustained. 10. As a result of the above discussion, the instant special appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 11.02.2019 passed by learned Single Bench is hereby reversed and set aside. 11. In the peculiar facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.