Suppression Of Pendency Of Criminal Case By Person Seeking Appointment To A Police Post Has Bearing On His Suitability: Delhi High Court

A two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Saurabh Banerjee while deciding a writ petition in the case of Shri Nomil Rana v. Union of India and Ors. has held that suppression of the material information regarding pendency of Criminal Case by a person seeking appointment to a police post wherein he is required to maintain public order has bearing on his suitability to hold the post in question.

Background of Facts

Shri Nomil Rana (Petitioner) was enrolled in CISF on September 29, 2014 and after completion of his training, he joined as a Constable in Senior Commandment, CISF, Ghaziabad, UP (Respondent). On October 10, 2016, the Petitioner was terminated from the services of the respondents due to the suppression of a fact in his Attestation Form related to one case under the sections 452/323/324/504 of IPC and Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, being pending against him. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition.

The Petitioner contended, inter alia, that the criminal matter, which was not disclosed in the Attestation Form, was compromised between the parties, even before joining of the petitioner in the respondents' Force. Pursuant thereto, the father of the Petitioner had also moved the quashing petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C before the Allahabad HC. The court stated that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants including the petitioner vide order dated April 7, 2014 and quashed the entire proceedings on October 27, 2014. Thus, the Petitioner submitted that from the aforementioned facts, it is clear that the Petitioner was enrolled on September 29, 2014, and through the quashing petition, the Criminal case was stayed by the Allahabad HC five months before the petitioner joined the services of the respondents' force. He further contended that the Attestation Form in which the material information related to pending Criminal case is alleged to have been supressed by the Petitioner, was filled up by some other person and only bears his signature.

On the other hand, it was contended inter alia, by the Respondents that the Petitioner was terminated from the services due to the suppression of the material information in the Attestation Form, more particularly in Column 12 of the said Form, wherein, it was asked from the petitioner to reveal if any case is pending/disposed against him in any court of law at the time of filling up the said Attestation Form. However, the Petitioner answered the same by writing 'No', whereas, it was found later on, that at the time of filling the Attestation Form, i.e., on September 26, 2014, there were two criminal cases which were pending against the Petitioner. It was also argued that the signing of the undertaking by the Petitioner also signifies that he was aware of the information submitted in the Attestation Form.

Findings of the Court

The court observed that the Criminal Case was registered in the year 2013 and therefore, the petitioner was aware of those proceedings which were initiated much before the filling up of the Attestation Form and as such there is no reason why the petitioner could not have referred to the said Criminal Case in the Attestation Form. As such, it is a clear case of concealment of material information by the Petitioner, which resulted in his termination by the respondents. The court relied on the Supreme Court case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Another v. Anil Kanwariya (2021) 10 SCC 136, wherein it was held that in a situation where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in the future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee.

Therefore, this court observed that:

“The suppression of the material information regarding pendency of Criminal Case by the petitioner, who is seeking appointment to a police post wherein he is required to maintain public order, surely, has a bearing on his suitability to hold the post in question."

Case: Shri Nomil Rana v. The Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 387

Case No. W.P.(C) 7385/2018

Counsels for the Applicant: Mr. Ravinder Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Ajay Gigpaul, Mr. Kamal R. Digpaul, Ms. Ishita Pathak, SI Prahlad Devendra, Ct. Lalit, Mr. Sujeet Kumar Mishra, Mr. Pankaj Balwan, Mr. Utkarsh

Click Here To Read/Download Order