Supreme Court: Suppression Of Material Information About Criminal Antecedents Has Bearing On Character
The Supreme Court of India, on September 26, held that the wide discretionary power with which the Court was invested under Article 136 was to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only.
Bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala heard a special leave petition against the decision of Delhi High Court whereby plea challenging the dismissal of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Constable on the ground that he concealed his criminal antecedents.
Factual Matrix
The appellant while filling up the requisite verification Form–25 at the time of his recruitment in the CRPF in Column 12 in response to the question whether any case was pending against him, the appellant answered in the negative. Thereafter, under Rule 14 of the CRPF Rules, the Character and Antecedents verification Form of the appellant was sent to the Collector, District Sant Kabir Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The Collector, vide his letter written in 2015, informed the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIGP), Group Centre, CRPF Rampur that the Criminal Case No. 1015 of 2008 had been registered against the appellant at the P.S. Khalilabad Sant Kabir Nagar, Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 324, 504 and 506 resply of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”).
Upon receipt of the information as aforesaid, the services of the appellant came to be terminated in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 vide the order dated 11.03.2016 on the ground that he had concealed the information as aforesaid while filling up the Form–25.
The writ petition preferred against the above mentioned order also came to be dismissed before the Delhi High Court.
Hence, the instant appeal by way of an SLP was filed.
Observations
The Court cited its judgment in Union of India and Others v. Methu Meda, (2022) 1 SCC 1, the respondent had applied for the post of constable in the CISF and was selected. The respondent had disclosed about the case in which he was acquitted. However, his selection was subsequently cancelled. The respondent challenged the same vide a writ petition, which the High Court allowed. This Court, however, set aside the High Court’s order and discussed the consequence of an acquittal on technical grounds. It was also reiterated that a person joining the police force must be of impeccable character and must not have any criminal antecedents.
Suppression Of Material Information Has Bearing On Character
The Court observed that, "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."
Scope Of Article 136
The Court observed that, "the principles of law discernible from the aforesaid are that unless, it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist; that substantial and grave injustice have been done and the case and question present features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against, this Court would not exercise its overriding powers under Article 136(1) of the Constitution."
The Court went on to observe that, "what has led to the termination of the services of the appellant Satish Chandra Yadav is not his involvement in the criminal case which was then pending, and in which he had been acquitted subsequently but the fact that he had withheld information while filling in the verification form. He could be said to have exhibited or displayed such a tendency which shook the confidence of the respondent."
Decision
The appeals were, henceforth, dismissed.
