JUDGMENT : 1. Heard on admission. 2. The order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge has been assailed on the ground that present is not a case where the appellant was finally convicted of the charges. It is submitted that even if it is admitted that at the time of police verification, the appellant suppressed the fact regarding institution and pendency of a criminal case registered against him, once there has been an acquittal, the appellant was entitled to be adjudged as suitable for appointment. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of EX-Const/DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar Versus Union of India & Others. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10499 of 2022), decided on 16.01.2023 has not been correctly appreciated by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Attention of the Court is also drawn to Circular dated 29.04.1995 by submitting that even in such a case, the department has a discretion, but here the discretion was exercised capriciously and arbitrarily. 3. Undisputed facts of the case are that the appellant had applied for appointment against the post in the disciplined force. It is also not in dispute that when a police verification was made and enquiry was made from the appellant, he suppressed the fact regarding institution and pendency of a criminal case registered against him. This fact was taken into consideration by the respondents while adjudging his suitability and it was decided not to grant appointment to the appellant. 4. Learned Single Judge has applied the principles propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of EX-Const/DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar Versus Union of India & Others (Supra). 5. In the aforesaid decision, after taking into consideration the principles as summarized in para 38 of the Larger Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Versus Union of India and Others (2016) 8 SCC 471 , following principles were laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:- “8. It may be noted that even after the guiding principles laid down in the case of Avtar Singh by the three-judge Bench, divergent views were expressed by the various benches of this Court. Therefore, this Court in case of Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India & Others. It may be noted that even after the guiding principles laid down in the case of Avtar Singh by the three-judge Bench, divergent views were expressed by the various benches of this Court. Therefore, this Court in case of Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India & Others. (2022) SCC Online SC 1300, after taking into consideration the inconsistent views taken in the cases of Union of India & Ors. Vs Methu Meda (2022) 1 SCC 1 ; Union of India vs. Dilip Kumar Mallick (2022) 6 Scale 108 ; Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2022) SCC Online SC 532; Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & Anr. Vs. Anil Kanwariya (2021) 10 SCC 136 ; Mohammed Imran Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others (2019) 17 SCC 696; etc., further laid down following principles: “89. The only reason to refer to and look into the various decisions rendered by this Court as above over a period of time is that the principles of law laid therein governing the subject are bit inconsistent. Even after, the larger Bench decision in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) different courts have enunciated different principles. 90. In such circumstances, we undertook some exercise to shortlist the broad principles of law which should be made applicable to the litigations of the present nature. The principles are as follows: (a) Each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by the public employer concerned, through its designated officials-more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society's security. [See Raj Kumar (supra)] (b) Even in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. The acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post. It would be still open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether the candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post. (c) The suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification Form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee. (c) The suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification Form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee. If it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service. (d) The generalisations about the youth, career prospects and age of the candidates leading to condonation of the offenders' conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided. (e) The Court should inquire whether the Authority concerned whose action is being challenged acted mala fide. (f) Is there any element of bias in the decision of the Authority? (g) Whether the procedure of inquiry adopted by the Authority concerned was fair and reasonable?” 6. The declaration of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. One of the principles propounded therein is that suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification relating to arrest, prosecution and conviction etc. has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee. The ultimate result of the criminal case would not wash away the conduct of the person and his act of suppression which has material bearing on his character and antecedents. We cannot ignore that the appellant was desirous of seeking appointment in a disciplined force. The case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was that a member of disciplined force, even after he entered into service, he was removed after holding departmental enquiry on the ground that he has suppressed material facts at the time of verification. 7. An assessment with regard to the character, conduct and antecedents of a candidate is a matter to be considered by the employer. Such assessment of suitability by the employer cannot be allowed to be interfered with unless there is a case of bias and mala-fide or clear violation of statute or against the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Versus Union of India and Others (Supra) and other decisions including those which have been placed before us. 8. This Court would not substitute the opinion with regard to suitability only on the ground that another view is possible. 9. 8. This Court would not substitute the opinion with regard to suitability only on the ground that another view is possible. 9. Tasted on the aforesaid principles, we are unable to hold that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from any patent illegality or ignorance of any principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on such issue. 10. Therefore, the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.