Supreme Court clarifies rules on non-disclosure of acquitted criminal cases in job applications: Ravindra Kumar vs. State of U.P. (22 February 2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 22 February 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 131

Judges: J.K. Maheshwari, J. and K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Is it always a strict rule that not revealing a past criminal case, even if you were acquitted, will cost you a job? The Supreme Court of India recently tackled this important question. The court looked at whether a job applicant should be disqualified for not mentioning a criminal case in which they were later acquitted. This case highlights the balance between transparency and fairness in employment.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, delivered the judgment. Justice K.V. Viswanathan authored the opinion.

Case Background

Ravindra Kumar, the appellant, applied for the position of Constable on February 12, 2004. Five days later, on February 17, 2004, a criminal case was registered against him under Sections 324, 352, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). He claimed the case was false. He successfully cleared the written exam, physical efficiency test, and interview.

The criminal case took a turn when, on September 13, 2004, the appellant was acquitted. The key witnesses, including the informant and his son, turned hostile during the trial. They stated that they could not identify the assailants. Additionally, a compromise was reached for the offense under Section 504 of the IPC.

After being selected, the appellant submitted an affidavit on October 30, 2004, stating that no criminal case had ever been registered against him. However, upon character verification, it was discovered that a criminal case had indeed been registered against him, though he was acquitted. Consequently, his selection was cancelled on April 12, 2005, for providing a false affidavit. The State argued that concealing the criminal case violated the recruitment notification.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, challenging the cancellation of his selection. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, stating that the appellant had suppressed material information about his criminal case, and the subsequent acquittal did not change this fact.

The appellant then filed a Special Appeal, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench. The Division Bench held that submitting a false affidavit was a serious act that affected the candidate’s character and that the appointing authority did not need to examine the details of the criminal case or its outcome.

Legal Framework

The case involves the interpretation of several legal provisions:

• Sections 324, 352, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): These sections deal with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means, assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation, and intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, respectively.
• Clause 9 of the recruitment notification dated January 20, 2004: This clause states that if facts are concealed in the affidavit, the candidate’s selection can be cancelled, and legal action can be taken. The clause states:

  “9. Character Verification: Character verification of all the candidates found eligible as above will be done as per the government rules prevailing at that time. In character verification, eligible candidates will have to furnish an affidavit in the prescribed format on a non -judicial stamp paper duly attested by a public notary. The format of the affidavit will be made available by the Selection Committee to the candidates finally selected in the interview. If it is found through the character verification or any other means that facts have been concealed in the affidavit by the candidate, not only will the selection of the candidate be cancelled but legal action can also be taken against him. No candidate/person/organization will have the right to protest in any court in case the selection is cancelled due to false facts being mentioned in the affidavit or not providing the prescribed required information.”

• Clauses 4, 5, 6, 7, and 11 of the Affidavit: These clauses required the candidate to disclose any criminal cases, arrests, pending cases, and acquittals.

  “4. That to the best of my knowledge, no criminal case/matter (cognizable or non -cognizable) has ever been registered against me, nor has the police challaned me in any such criminal case, nor is any police investigation pending against me. NO”

  “5. That I have never been arrested in any criminal case (cognizable or non -cognizable) nor have I ever surrendered in any such criminal case. NO”

  “6. That the details of the criminal cases which have been registered against me or in which I have been challaned or which were/are pending against me in the court or under investigation by the police are as follows (if the information is nil the n write ‘zero’)”

  “7. That the details of the criminal cases pending against me in any court and in which I was punished or acquitted or discharged are as follows (if the information is nil then write ‘zero’) ZERO”

  “11. That if anything mentioned in the application is found to be false or the facts are found to be concealed and if I am immediately unconditionally terminated from the Uttar Pradesh Police Service and also given statutory punishment, then it will be acceptable to me.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that there was no willful concealment of facts.
• At the time of submitting the application form on February 12, 2004, there was no criminal case pending against him.
• He was acquitted in the criminal case on September 13, 2004, before submitting the affidavit on October 30, 2004.
• Since no criminal case was pending at the time of filing the affidavit, he believed that there was no requirement to disclose it.
• There was no intention to deceive the authorities.

State’s Arguments:

• The State contended that the appellant made false representations in Clauses 4, 5, 6, and 7 of his affidavit.
• The State argued that the appellant, along with two other persons who gave false statements, were correctly subjected to cancellation of their selection.
• The State relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, particularly paragraphs 38.1, 38.2, 38.3, and 38.11.

Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Was the State justified in cancelling the selection of the appellant, vide its order of 12.04.2005?
2. To what relief, if any, is the appellant entitled to?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

Legal Provisions:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471:* The Court used this case as a guiding principle, emphasizing the need for objective criteria and reasonable exercise of power by the employer.
• Commissioner of Police and Others vs. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644:* The Court used this case to highlight the need for a lenient view in cases of youthful indiscretions and minor offenses.
• Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2011) 14 SCC 709:* The Court followed this case, emphasizing that the appointing authority should assess suitability rather than mechanically rejecting candidates based on incorrect affidavit information.
• Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India and Another, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 532:* The Court relied on this case to reiterate that mere suppression of information is not enough for termination and that the employer must consider all relevant facts.
• Mohammed Imran vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2019) 17 SCC 696:* The Court cited this case to highlight the importance of giving individuals an opportunity to improve and move forward, rather than being held back by past conduct.
• Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India and Others, (2023) 7 SCC 530:* The Court used this case to underscore the need for a fair and reasonable inquiry procedure by the employer.
• Director General of Police, Tamilnadu, Mylapore vs. J. Raghunees, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1379:* The Court distinguished this case, stating that the facts of the appellant’s case were more aligned with the judgments in Pawan Kumar, Sandeep, and Ram Kumar.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors:

• The appellant’s socio-economic background as a resident of a small village.
• The fact that there was no criminal case pending at the time of the initial application.
• The appellant’s acquittal in the criminal case.
• The nature of the offenses in the criminal case, which were not serious.
• The positive character verification reports from the police and Gram Pradhan.
• The procedural unfairness in the cancellation order.
• The need to consider each case individually, rather than applying a blanket rule.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The court placed more emphasis on the factual aspects of the case, such as the appellant’s background, the timing of the criminal case, and the positive character reports, than on purely legal considerations.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as strictly applying the recruitment rules and the affidavit clauses. However, it rejected these interpretations because they would lead to an unjust outcome in this case. The court emphasized the need for a holistic view and consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances.

The Court decided that the non-disclosure of the criminal case, which ended in acquittal, was not fatal for the appellant’s employment. The court emphasized the need for a balanced approach that considers the facts of each case and the overall context.

The reasons for the decision included:

• The appellant’s socio-economic background.
• The timing of the criminal case.
• The appellant’s acquittal.
• The nature of the offenses.
• The positive character reports.
• The procedural unfairness.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Each case will depend on the facts and circumstances that prevail thereon, and the court will have to take a holistic view, based on objective criteria, with the available precedents serving as a guide. It can never be a one size fits all scenario.”

“Broad -brushing every non -disclosure as a disqualification, will be unjust and the same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the ground realities obtaining in this great, vast and diverse country.”

“The exercise of power has to be in a reasonable manner with objectivity and having due regard to the facts. In short, the ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria after due consideration of all relevant aspects.”

Key Takeaways

• Non-disclosure of an acquitted criminal case is not always a ground for disqualification from employment.
• Employers must consider the specific circumstances of each case, including the nature of the offense, the timing of the case, and the candidate’s background.
• A holistic approach is required, considering all relevant facts and circumstances, rather than applying a rigid rule.
• Positive character verification reports should be given due weight.
• Employers must act reasonably and objectively, and their decisions should be based on fair procedures.

This judgment may lead to a more balanced approach by employers when assessing candidates with past criminal cases that have ended in acquittal. It emphasizes the need for fairness and objectivity, rather than automatic disqualification based on non-disclosure. This decision could also impact future cases involving similar issues, providing a precedent for more lenient consideration of candidates with minor criminal histories.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondents to appoint the appellant to the post of Constable for which he was selected. The Court also specified that the appellant would not be entitled to arrears of salary for the period he was out of service but would be entitled to all notional benefits, including pay, seniority, and other consequential benefits. The necessary orders were to be passed within four weeks.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that non-disclosure of a criminal case in which the candidate was acquitted is not automatically fatal for employment. The judgment clarifies that employers must consider the specific facts and circumstances of each case, including the nature of the offense, the timing of the case, and the candidate’s background, and must act reasonably and objectively, rather than applying a blanket rule. This decision reinforces the principles laid down in previous cases like Avtar Singh and Sandeep Kumar, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that considers both transparency and fairness.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ravindra Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Ors. provides a significant clarification on the issue of non-disclosure of criminal cases in job applications. The Court held that the non-disclosure of a criminal case that ended in acquittal is not always a valid ground for disqualification. The decision emphasizes the need for employers to adopt a balanced and holistic approach, considering the individual circumstances of each case and ensuring fairness and objectivity in their decisions. The court directed the reinstatement of the appellant with notional benefits, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.