SHESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but important question involved in this petition is : Whether denial of appointment as a constable in State Police Service to the petitioner on the ground of suppression of material fact about pendency of a criminal case against him involving moral turpitude can be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable calling for issuance of a mandamus by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ?

(2.) UNDISPUTED factual position is that pursuant to an advertisement of 69 vacancies of constable for the District of Dholpur, the petitioner applied for the same. In the written test conducted on August 18, 1996, he was declared successful. He was also found physically fit and provisionally selected. However, on police verification of his character and antecedents it was found that a criminal case No. 228/93 under Section 394 IPC was pending against him in which he was facting trial before a competent Court but this fact was deliberately suppressed by the petitioner in Column No. 17 of the Application Form submitted by him. Column No. 17 of the Application form required the petitioner to state whether he is/was involved in a criminal case. Whether he was arrested in any case and whether he was convicted in any case ? While answering this column, the petitioner denied about his involvement in the criminal case. He also made a declaration at the bottom of the Application form that all informations given by him were true to his knowledge and if any information was found incorrect administrative and legal action might be taken against him. There is no dispute that this Application Form, a photo stat copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure R1, was filled in by the petitioner himself and he signed the same and also gave the above declaration. The petitioner had also filled in a Verification Roll, a photo copy Annexure R2 has been placed on record. In Column No. 8 of the said Verification Roll also he was required to state as to whether he was an accused in any criminal case or awarded sentence of imprisonment. In that Column he denied to have been involved in any criminal case. Thus, undisputed facts are that the petitioner was guilty of suppressio -veri and suggestion falsi, inasmuch as he suppressed the material fact of his involvement as an accused in a criminal case under Section 394 IPC and he made a false suggestion that he had never been an accused in any criminal case.

(3.) POLICE force in which the petitioner was seeking appointment as a constable, is a disciplined force. Verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to the post. Column No. 17 of the Application Form and Column No. 8 of the Verification Roll required a candidate to give complete information about any criminal case in which he was involved as an accused. A candidate was required to give correct information as it was necessary for verification of his. antecedents. A deliberate suppression of material information which required to be disclosed in the Application Form and Verification Roll, or submitting a false statement would amount serious misconduct which would dis -entitle a candidate to get appointment. The petitioner being guilty of suppression of material fact and also of misrepresenting in the Application Form and Verification Roll that he was not involved in any criminal case, was rightly denied appointment by the respondents. Subsequent acquittal in the criminal case does not improve his position. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate for which he was required to state material facts about his involvement as an accused in a criminal case. The appointing authority, therefore, has rightly found him undesirable for appointment in the service.