CW 6185/06 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.6185/2006 Kheta Ram Versus State & Anr. Date of Order ::: 25/09/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Shobhit Tiwari, for petitioner Mr. JK agrawal, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondent State Instant petition has been filed seeking appointment as a consequence of his selection made in pursuance of advertisement dt.14/06/05 (Ann.1). Applications were invited for the post of Constable in various districts vide advertisement (Ann.1) - in response thereto, petitioner applied for district Bikaner. In process of selection, he appeared in written examination followed by physical test & interview and was finally placed at S.No.16 in order of merit. But when matter was sent for character verification, it revealed that there were criminal cases instituted against him and since this fact was not disclosed by him in application form, but suppression was made while filling up verification form dt.18/03/06 (Ann.7) particularly Cls.8 & 9 and on the said premise of suppression of material fact, he was denied appointment and when legal notice was served, he was informed vide letter dt.28/06/06 (Ann.4) in CW 6185/06 //2// order to justify denial of his appointment; viz., that while petitioner filled up application for, he was supposed to disclose about institution of any criminal case, if ever involved therein, in Col.17, so also at the stage of verification in paras 8 & 9 as to whether he had ever been prosecuted or arrested. However, indisputably petitioner did not disclose these material information asked for and after his final selection, when this fact came to the notice of authority, appointment was denied to him. Counsel for petitioner submits that criminal case was instituted against petitioner but he was released on probation upon execution of bonds and there was acquittal in both the two other cases and once there was an order of acquittal passed by a competent court of jurisdiction before application was submitted in pursuance of advertisement, it could not have been considered to be any concealment of material information more-so while R.13) of Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (“Rules, 1989”) does not disqualify a person seeking appointment even if finally convicted by Court of law. In support, Counsel placed reliance on decision of Apex Court in State of Harayana Vs. Dinesh Kumar (2008(3) SCC 222). CW 6185/06 //3// Counsel further submits that as per Circular dt.23/10/06 issued by respondents which observed that even if there is concealment made while filling up Col. 15 & 17, but finally acquitted or released on probation & otherwise suitable, such candidates be considered for appointment on the basis of his final selection. Respondents in para 6 of their reply averred about institution of criminal cases registered against petitioner on the basis of police verification sent by SP Sikar vide letter dt.07/04/06 ad infra: 1. Cr. Case No.177/96 U/Ss 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 & 341, IPC - Petitioner was released on probation bond vide judgment dt.19/04/99. 2. Cr. Case No.268/97 U/Ss 147, 447, 379 & 427, IPC - Petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dt.27/08/97 3. Cr. Case No.88/99 U/Ss 341, 323 & 504, IPC - Petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dt.109/08/05. According to respondents, since petitioner failed to disclose material information while applying for in pursuance of advertisement dt.14/06/05 (Ann.1) and so also in verification roll while filling up Col. 8 & 9, which was CW 6185/06 //4// considered to be suppression on his part and consequently, was not considered for appointment. In support, Govt. Counsel placed reliance upon decision of Full Bench of this Court in Dharam Pal Singh Vs. State (2000(2) WLC 400) and so also decision of Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen (AIR 2008 SCW 4058). I have considered rival contentions of both the parties and pondered over material on record. As per advertisement dt.14/06/05 (Ann.1) last date for submission of application was 15/07/05. Indisputably, on last date (15/07/05), as is evident from averments made in para 6 of the reply to writ petition, three criminal cases were instituted against petitioner (i) in 1996, wherein he was convicted & released on probation vide judgment dt.19/04/99, (ii) in 1997 wherein he was acquitted vide judgment dt.27/08/97 and (iii) in 1999 wherein criminal case was pending on last date of submission of application (15/07/05) and he was acquitted vide judgment dt.10/08/05. Institution of criminal cases (supra) and his involvement therein for various offences (supra) being material information, rather was required to be disclosed by petitioner in relevant columns of his application form in pursuance of advertisement CW 6185/06 //5// dt.14/06/05. As per application form, what was required to be disclosed by petitioner was as to whether he was ever involved in criminal case or its pendency against him and that apart, while filling up verification form in Cols.8 & 9, he was to disclose information as to whether he was ever an accused in criminal case or imprisoned. Relevant Cols. 8 & 9 read ad infra: 8- आया ूाथȸ कभी िकसी फौजदारी मामले में मुलिजम बना है या कभी जेल की सजा पाई है :- नहीं 9- क् या कजर्दार है और आया उसके िवरूƮ कोई फौजदारी मुकदमा या दीवानी दावा चल रहा है :- नहीं In both the columns (supra), petitioner has specifically mentioned “No” whereas fact was that as per detailed furnished by respondents three different criminal cases were registered against petitioner; and as regards Cr.Case- 187/99 instituted in 1999, acquittal was passed by Court of appeal vide judgment dt.08/03/06 (Ann.5). Petitioner was under obligation to disclose about institution of criminal cases registered against him wherein he was one of the accused but he completely suppressed while filling up application & verification forms particularly in its Cols. 8 & 9 (Ann.7). Full Bench of this Court in Dharam Pal Singh Vs. State (supra) examined the issue as to CW 6185/06 //6// what will be the effect if material information is suppressed or failure to disclose the same by incumbent while applying for a post in pursuance of advertisement, about institution of criminal cases, even otherwise finally acquitted. Full Bench observed ad infra: “In this view, suppression of material information or furnishing it wrongly in column No.17 of the form is a vital factor,which goes against the candidate. Rule 15 of the Rules empowers the authority to deny appointment or debar such candidate for admission to any examination or appearance at any interview either permanently or for specified period.” After taking note of catena of decisions, Full Bench observed as under : “26. In the light of the facts stated and the discussion made above, we answer the questions 1 to 3 aforementioned as follows : 1.That a candidate was prosecuted or subjected to investigation on a criminal charge is a material fact, suppression of which would entitle an employer to deny employment to a candidate on that ground. 2.That ultimate acquittal of a candidate, who was prosecuted on a criminal charge, would not condone or wash out the consequences of suppression of the fact that he was prosecuted. 3. That suppression of material fact would itself dis-entitle a candidate from being appointed in service.” Even in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Ramaratan CW 6185/06 //7// Yadav (JT 2003(2) SC 256), Apex Court observed : - “.. The object of requiring information in various columns like Column No.12 of the attestation form and declaration thereafter by the candidate is to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to enter into or continue in service. When a candidate suppresses material information and/or gives false information he cannot claim any right for appointment or continuance in service. There can be no dispute to this position in law. But on the facts of the case it cannot be said that the respondent had made false declaration or had suppressed material information.” (Emphasis laid) Thus it is settled law that if applicant has been prosecuted and is subject to investigation for criminal case, it is a material fact and its suppression would be sufficient to deny appointment to him even if finally selected. Apex Court also recently considered in Union of India Vs. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen (supra) and observed ad infra : “5... It bears repetition that what has led to the termination of service of the respondent is not his involvement in the two cases which were then pending, and in which he had been discharged subsequently, but the fact that he had withheld relevant information while filling in the attestation form. We are further of the opinion that an employment as a Police Officer pre-supposes a higher level of integrity as such a person is expected to uphold the law, and on the contrary, such a service born in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated.. “ In the facts of instant case, indisputably petitioner has suppressed material CW 6185/06 //8// information about institution/registration of three criminal cases in which he was an accused and once prosecuted and in Col.8 of verification form filled by petitioner, it was specifically asked for as to whether he was an accused in criminal case or ever imprisoned; and in Col.9, specific information was asked for disclosure as to whether there is any criminal case ever pending against him; to which petitioner mentioned as “No” and non-disclosure of material information in relevant columns of application and verification forms, in the light of decision of Apex Court as well as Full Bench of this Court was certainly considered to be material concealment and suppression of facts dis- entitling petitioner from claiming appointment despite his final selection. As regards submission made of his ultimate acquittal in criminal cases and so also seeking benefit of R.13 of Rules, 1989, suffice it to say that the question is not as to whether after regular trial, what will be effect of final acquittal or whether convicted person is also eligible for appointment under Scheme of Rules, 1989 but question for consideration was as to whether concealment or suppression of material information while non-disclosure whereof in application as desired by employer, CW 6185/06 //9// certainly dis-entitled him for seeking appointment, even if ultimately acquitted or released on probation by court of law. Rule 13 of Rules, 1989, relates to verification of character and certainly conviction by court of law does not disqualify applicant seeking appointment. But if he has suppressed and concealed material information and failed to disclose relevant required information in application or verification forms; however, in fact it dis-entitles him from seeking appointment. As regards Circular dt.23/10/06 (Ann.9) on which counsel for petitioner placed reliance, on the basis of which, even if there is non- disclosure of material information in the application and verification forms but even if applicant is finally convicted or ultimately acquitted or released on probation in criminal case, applicant can be appointed on his final selection; suffice it to say that as informed while placing subsequent circular dt.23/03/07 (No. F.2(54)Home-1/06), Circular dt.23/10/06 as relied upon by Counsel for petitioner, has been withdrawn by State Government and is of no assistance to him. Judgment of Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Dinesh Kumar (supra) on which CW 6185/06 //10// Counsel for petitioner placed reliance, is a case where the Apex Court considered about effect and impact of arrest & custody in the facts of that case, making distinction between “arrest” and “custody” which is of no assistance in the facts of instant case. In the opinion of this Court, concealment of material information on the part of petitioner certainly dis-entitles him from seeking appointment despite his final selection. I do not find justification to call for interference in the order impugned. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.10/6185CW06-Sep08.doc