Non-Disclosure Of Minor Criminal Cases Which Were Quashed Not Fatal For Appointment To Govt Post: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court observed that every non-disclosure of criminal cases by an individual cannot be regarded as fatal for his appointment to a government post.While quashing the termination notice and relieving order issued to the employee, Justice D.K. Singh pointed out that the authority has not considered the fact that the non-disclosure of these cases did not impact the employee's suitability for the post, since the cases were not serious in nature and were not offences involving moral turpitude. Court stated, “Non-disclosure of two minor cases, which were later on quashed and closed, one by the High Court and another by paying the fine, would not itself make the petitioner unsuitable for the post of Driver. It must be noted that the authority did not consider the fact that the alleged offences were committed by the petitioner when he was a student, and the nature of the offences were not serious but trivial in nature. Nowhere has the authority recorded a finding that nondisclosure of the offences which were subsequently quashed and compounded involve the moral turpitude of the petitioner. The fact remains that the petitioner was involved in those offences when he was young and involved in the activities of the student union. Every non-disclosure cannot be treated to be fatal to the appointment to the post of Driver in the respondent.”In the facts of the case, the Petitioner was appointed as Driver Mechanical Transport in General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF) in 2019 vacancy in OBC category. He was appointed in 2022. The Petitioner was issued with a show cause notice asking him to explain why he should not be terminated for suppressing information regarding his involvement in two criminal cases. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued with a termination notice and a relieving letter. The Counsel for Petitioner submitted that he was involved in minor cases, one of which was quashed by the High Court and the other compounded with payment of fine should not be fatal to his appointment. It was submitted that the first case was registered in 2015 for offences punishable under Sections 452, 294,325 and 324 of IPC, which was quashed by the High Court in 2022. It was submitted that the other case was of the year 2011 where he was accused for causing road blockage during temple festival and crime was registered under Sections 143, 147, 188 and 283 of the IPC. The petitioner submitted that this case was compounded on payment of fine. The petitioner argued that his involvement in minor cases while he was in college involved in Union activities of college must not hinder his appointment.The Court noted that there is no dispute that the offences in which the Petitioner was involved were trivial and not involving his moral turpitude. The Court referred to Apex Court decision in Avtar Singh v Union of India (2018) to state that young people often commit indiscretions and those can often be condoned. The Court also relied upon Ravindra Kumar vs State Of U.P (2024) where it was stated that treating every non-disclosure for disqualification for employment would be unjust and that the Courts must take a holistic view, considering the ground realities. Court thus stated, “considering the view taken by the Supreme Court in the cases cited above, I am of the view that the non-disclosure of two criminal cases against the petitioner, which were quashed and compounded, would not be fatal to the petitioner's suitability to the post inasmuch as the cases are not serious in character and do not involve the petitioner's moral turpitude.”Accordingly, the Court set aside the termination notice and relieving letter issued to the Petitioner. The Court further directed the Commanding Officer to reconsider suitability of the Petitioner to hold the post of Driver Mechanical Transport due to non-disclosure of two criminal cases which were quashed and compounded. Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates C.Rajendran, B.Gopalakrishnan, R.S.Sreevidya, Manu M.Counsel for Respondents: Advocate K S Prenjith Kumar, Central Government Counsel Dayasindhu SreehariCase Title: Harilal S v Union of IndiaCase No: WP(C) NO. 17573 OF 2023Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 84Click here to Read/Download Order

Non-Disclosure Of Minor Criminal Cases Which Were Quashed Not Fatal For Appointment To Govt Post: Kerala High Court

Tellmy Jolly

Tags