Delhi HC Reinstated A Candidate Whose Services Were Terminated For Lying About Involvement In Criminal Case

The Delhi High Court bench comprising Justices V. Kameshwar Rao and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta recently reinstated the employment of a candidate whose services were terminated for lying about his involvement in a criminal case in his attestation form and thereafter lying in his undertaking.

In the matter at hand, the petitioner had applied for the position of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police Examination, 2020 and was provisionally selected after the verification of his documents. He received a letter of appointment in February 2022 and was asked to join from March 15, 2022 but it was later found that there was a criminal case against the petitioner but had been acquitted by the court. However it was seen that in the attestation form the petitioner had ticked no to having any criminal case pending against him. Resultantly, an order was passed terminating his services.

Proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal:

The petitioner submitted before the trial court that said FIR was a result of a family dispute and he had been acquitted in the same. He said that the respondents were required to consider the suitability of the petitioner for his continuation in service and should not have terminated the services in a mechanical manner on the sole ground of non- disclosure about his involvement in the said case in the attestation form. 

It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner concealed the fact that he was involved in a criminal case and had later also given an undertaking. Hence, it was urged that malafide intention is reflected due to the concealment. 

The tribunal in the light of the aforementioned dismissed the application. Thereafter the petitioner filed the writ petition before the high court of Delhi.

Proceedings before the High Court:

The counsel on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in spite of the concealment of facts regarding involvement of the petitioner in an FIR, the authority concermed was required to apply an objective criteria and consider all attending facts and circumstances like age of applicant, nature of offence and his/ her antecedents before passing the order. 

 It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that tribunal failed to consider the trivial nature of prosecution against the petitioner and the fact that incident did not involve moral turpitude and there was no supporting evidence to support the role of the petitioner.

It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that honesty and integrity of the petitioner was questionable in view of suppression of material fact in respect of his criminal antecedents and hence they have not erred in their decision of terminating the services of the petitioner.

The high court bench relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court and observed that the apex court has reiterated the principle that the acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post and it would still be open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine if the candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post. The court also observed that the suppression of material information and making a false declaration has a clear bearing on the character.

The court also noted that when a material fact has been concealed by the candidate, the exercise of power by the employer has to be in a reasonable manner with objectivity having regards to the facts in each case and the yardstick to be applied does not depend only on the nature of the post but also on the nature of criminal involvement.

The court relied on the guidelines laid down in Avtar Singh and observed that the competent authority in this case was bound to consider the suitability of the petitioner having regard to the trivial nature of offence and that fact that the charges were neither grave nor involved moral turpitude, prior to terminating his services.

The court also said that it is necessary to ensure that inquiry done by the authority should be fair as reasonable as put forth in Satish Chandra’s case.

In the light of the aforementioned, the court set aside the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the order passed by the respondents which terminated the employment of the petitioner. The court further directed the reinstating of the petitioner in service with all notional benefits including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits.

CASE: MAHENDRA SOLANKI V. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR

W.P.(C) 2219/2023