15 November 2017
Supreme Court
Download

VIKRAM SINGH Vs THE COMM. OF POLICE

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH, HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
Judgment by: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
Case number: C.A. No.-018800-018800 / 2017
Diary number: 23666 / 2013
Advocates: VISHWA PAL SINGH Vs


1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

  CIVIL APPEAL  NO(S). 18800/2017 (ARISING FROM SLP(C) No.24320/2014)

VIKRAM SINGH APPELLANT(S)                                 VERSUS

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

Leave granted. 2. The appellant is before this Court, aggrieved by the  cancellation  of  candidature  for  selection  for appointment as a constable under the respondent.  It is on the ground that the appellant had suppressed some  information  regarding  involvement  in  the criminal cases. 3. The law on the said issue has been laid down by this  Court  in  Avtar  Singh v.  Union  of  India  and Others, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, which reads as follows:-

“38.1 Information given to the employer

1

2

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 recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted :

2

3

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 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

3

4

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.

4

5

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.”

4. Though  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the appellant made strenuous submissions to contend for

5

6

the position that the lapses, if any, are only to be condoned  since  everything  occurred  prior  to  the filing  of  the  application  and  the  appellant  had already been acquitted also even before filing of the application.   As rightly pointed by Ms. Kiran Suri, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondent, if at all anything is to be done it can only be on consideration by the respondent of all the relevant aspects,  in the  light of  the judgment  referred to above. 5. Accordingly,  this  appeal  is  disposed  of  as follows:-

The  appellant  is  permitted  to  file  a detailed  representation  before  the  respondent, within a period of one month from today.  In the event  of  filing  of  such  a  representation,  the respondent will consider the same in the light of the  judgment  referred  to  above  and  pass  a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, within a period of four months thereafter.

We make it clear that the judgment of the High  Court shall  not stand  in the  way of  the respondent/Commissioner of Police passing orders, as above.

6

7

6. Pending  applications,  if  any,  shall  stand disposed of. 7. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.......................J.               [R. BANUMATHI]  

NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER 15, 2017.

7