JUDGMENT P.Krishna Kumar, J. O.P.(KAT)No.504/2024 The petitioner, who was advised by the Public Service Commission for appointment as a Police Driver, was not called for training alleging that he had indulged in certain criminal cases and thus his character and antecedents are not befitting to the said post. The petitioner challenged Annexure A9 communication in this regard by contending that the three criminal cases in which he was implicated had occurred as part of his student life activities at Mahatma Gandhi College, Thiruvananthapuram and the actual allegations made against him were only of a trifling nature. 2. He also contended that among the three cases, two cases were already over as he pleaded guilty to the charges and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,900/- each. In the third case, he was acquitted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, after a full-fledged trial by Annexure A4 judgment, on finding that none of the witnesses including the police officials were able to identify any of the accused persons. He also attempted to clarify that the Verification Roll which he had to submit before joining the service was in a bilingual proforma and the terms used in the Malayalam language were different from the requirements given in the English version. According to him, because of that confusion, he did not furnish the details of the two cases which were already disposed of on payment of a fine, though he provided the details of the other case. 3. The respondents contended that offences alleged against him are grave in nature and there is no justification for suppressing the relevant facts in the Verification Roll and thus he is not suitable to be appointed in the Police force. The State further contended that the Kerala Police constabulary being a disciplined and uniformed force, persons with unblemished character alone could be appointed therein. It is also contended that the terms used in the Verification Roll were specific and precise and hence the contention that it caused confusion is incorrect, especially when the petitioner is a graduate. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 5. It is also contended that the terms used in the Verification Roll were specific and precise and hence the contention that it caused confusion is incorrect, especially when the petitioner is a graduate. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 5. The law has been settled by the Honourable Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others [ (2016) 8 SCC 471 ) as to the essential matters to be considered while rejecting the candidature of a person on account of his criminal antecedents. After considering a catena of decisions dealing with the propriety of appointing persons involved in criminal cases, the Apex Court set out the following guidelines for the compliance of the appointing authority when the candidate to be appointed has a criminal background. “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 an 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. 38.4.3. 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. 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 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.” 6. 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.” 6. As far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the directions Nos.38.1, 2 and 4 are relevant. The allegation against the petitioner in one of the said cases (Crime No.1124/2013) was indeed very serious. The offences involved therein include Sections 308 and 149 of the India Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act. However, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges by Annexure A4 judgment. Now the question is, whether it was a clean acquittal as held by the Apex Court. 7. When we pursue Annexure A4 judgment, we find that there is no iota of evidence even to suspect that the petitioner had any complicity in the said offence. The contention of the petitioner before us is that he was wrongly implicated in the said case and he was never arrested by the Police. Through the said judgment, the Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused persons by holding that none of the witnesses including the police officials were able to identify any of the accused persons. Apart from relying on the said judgment and the case records, the Government did not independently consider whether the petitioner had any role in that case. In the absence of any such materials, the alleged involvement of the petitioner in that case cannot be cited as a ground to decline his appointment. It is relevant to note that the said case was also registered by the Police in respect of some student protest in the college of the petitioner. 8. The allegations in the other two criminal cases, in our opinion, are not serious and admittedly occurred in connection with student agitations in the college of the petitioner. In Crime No.998/2013, the summary of the allegation as is evident from Annexure A9 is that the petitioner and certain other students led a procession shouting slogans, damaged the chair of the security guard and squatted in the road in front of the main gate of the Mahatma Gandhi college and caused obstruction to the vehicular traffic. The allegation in Crime No.1057/2013 is also the same. The allegation in Crime No.1057/2013 is also the same. In both these cases, the petitioner appeared before the court and pleaded guilty and paid a fine of Rs.1,900/- each. 9. The Apex Court in Avtar Singh ’s case (supra) has observed that even when an employee gave false information about his antecedents, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case which resulted in furnishing false information, before proposing an order of cancellation of the candidature or termination of service. In this case, the petitioner had furnished the details of one case, but did not mention the other two cases. 10. According to the petitioner, he did not furnish such details believing that it was not required to state about those cases, as the format of the Verification Roll caused some confusion. It is contended that from the Malayalam version of the question in Column No.19(a) in the proforma of the Verification Roll, what he understood was that he was not bound to answer the question in Column No.19(b). Whatever may be that, as we noted above, the allegations against the petitioner in those cases are trivial in nature and were the result of student indiscretions. The Apex Court in Avtar Singh ’s case (supra) further opined that at a young age, people often commit mistakes and such lapses are often condonable considering the immaturity of youthful offenders, while deciding whether their candidature for employment is to be rejected or not. As we observed above, even in the case in which he was tried and acquitted, the alleged incident occurred as part of a strike in his college. Anyway, we need not advert to the details of the said case as there is nothing on record to suspect his involvement in it. 11. The allegations against the petitioner in the criminal cases being the nature as referred to above, we are of the opinion that denying his candidature by concluding that the character and antecedents of the petitioner are not satisfactory, is arbitrary and unfair. In Annexure A9, the Government took that decision by drawing authority from Section 86 of the Kerala Police Act and Rule 10(b)(iii) of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules.Earlier, this Court had the occasion to consider almost similar aspects in State of Kerala & Others v. Durgadas & Another ( 2023 (6) KHC 339 ). In Annexure A9, the Government took that decision by drawing authority from Section 86 of the Kerala Police Act and Rule 10(b)(iii) of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules.Earlier, this Court had the occasion to consider almost similar aspects in State of Kerala & Others v. Durgadas & Another ( 2023 (6) KHC 339 ). In that case, a person was denied appointment to the Police department citing that the department found his character and antecedents unsatisfactory because of his involvement in certain criminal cases. In the said circumstances, this Court observed that involvement in criminal cases can certainly be considered as relevant material while verifying the character and antecedents, but the same should not in itself be taken as a ground to conclude that the person is of bad character/ antecedents. The court further held that the allegations in the criminal cases have to be considered independently to assess the character and integrity of a person. It is also observed that based on the mere allegations in the prosecution case, the Government should not hold that the person is disqualified for appointment in Police service, by resorting to Rule 10(b)(iii) of the KS&SSR and Section 86 of the Police Act. 12. In Annexure A9 order, the Government did not consider the character and antecedents of the petitioner in an objective manner, independent of his mere involvement in the criminal cases. The Government did not follow the law laid down by this court before arriving at such a conclusion. Thus, merely for the reason that the petitioner suffered a sentence of fine on pleading guilty in a case where allegations of trivial nature are made against him, we do not find any justification in issuing Annexure A9 order, particularly in view of the guidelines issued by the Honourable Apex Court in Avtar Singh ’s case. 13. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the conclusions arrived at by the Government to hold against the candidature of the petitioner are grossly erroneous and unsustainable. The Tribunal also did not consider the law laid down in this regard by the Honourable Supreme Court as well as this Court, in its proper perspective. 13. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the conclusions arrived at by the Government to hold against the candidature of the petitioner are grossly erroneous and unsustainable. The Tribunal also did not consider the law laid down in this regard by the Honourable Supreme Court as well as this Court, in its proper perspective. The learned Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner without referring to the allegations made against him in the said cases and the shallow nature of the assessment made by the Government while issuing Annexure A9 order. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. O.P.(KAT)No.544/2024 14. The petitioner in this case applied for the post of Civil Police Officer for various Battalions of the Kerala Armed Police. He belongs to a scheduled caste community. He was advised by the Public Service Commission, but he was served with Annexure A15 order dated 23.10.2021 refusing appointment on the ground that his character and antecedents were found unsatisfactory, as he had been involved in a criminal case. Similar to the contentions raised by the petitioner in O.P. (KAT)No.504/2024, the petitioner herein also contended that he omitted to mention the details of the said case believing that the same is not required as the offences alleged therein were compounded on paying fine. According to him, he was falsely implicated in that case on a mistaken identity and he pleaded guilty to avoid unnecessary complications, following the advice of a Police officer. 15. We perused Annexure A15 order issued by the Government to consider whether the Government acted fairly while arriving at the above conclusion. The allegation against the petitioner in Crime No.1524/2017 was that on 19.11.2017 at 2 p.m., he uttered abusive words and showed some sexual gestures, in a public place. The explanation offered by the petitioner was that at the age of 23 when the petitioner was asked by a Police officer attached to Kadakkavoor police station to pay a fine in a petty case against him, he pleaded guilty and remitted the fine believing the advice given by the said Police officer that it would help him from avoiding unwanted complications of contesting the case on merit. According to the petitioner, he was never involved in the said case and he was implicated in it on a mistaken identity. According to the petitioner, he was never involved in the said case and he was implicated in it on a mistaken identity. Even if the said explanation cannot be given any credence, we do not find that the involvement in such a case alone is sufficient to decline the candidature of the petitioner. The petitioner belongs to a marginalised community. The allegation against him, i.e., showing some sexual gestures and uttering abusive words at the age of 23, if considered as so serious to deny him public employment, it would be an unfair and arbitrary exercise and against the law settled by the Honourable Supreme Court in Avtar Singh ’s case. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision rendered by this court in Binnesh Babu @ Bineesh Babu v. State of Kerala ( 2024 (3) KHC 364 ) wherein this Court has taken a lenient view in a similar matter following the decision in Avtar Singh ’s case. The applicant in the said case was involved in many criminal cases and was imposed with a fine on pleading guilty in certain cases. However, this court held that he being a person belonging to a scheduled caste community, the State must act with fairness and show genuine concern for its citizens, while striving to achieve the status of a true welfare State, by addressing social disparities and acknowledging that not everyone in our society has the same access to resources and opportunities. 17. Considering the entire materials available before us, we find that the Government did not act fairly while issuing Annexure A15 order and hence the same is liable to be set aside. In the result, O.P.(KAT)Nos.504/2024 and 544/2024 are allowed. The impugned order and Annexure A9 in O.P.(KAT)No.504/2024 and Annexure A15 in O.P.(KAT)No.544/2024 are set aside. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioners in accordance with law, based on the advice made by the Public Service Commission.