Supreme Court overturns High Court order on Constable Appointment: State of Rajasthan vs. Chetan Jeff (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 11 May 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 449

Judges: M. R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a person who fails to disclose a pending criminal case in their job application be considered for a position in the police force? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the appointment of a constable in Rajasthan. The court examined whether suppressing such information should disqualify a candidate, even if the charges are considered minor. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M. R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna, with the majority opinion authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case revolves around a recruitment drive for constables in Rajasthan in 2008. The respondent, Chetan Jeff, applied for the position and, in his application form, stated that he had no criminal antecedents and no pending FIRs or criminal cases against him. However, at the time of his application, an FIR had already been registered against him in 2007 for offenses under Sections 143, 341, and 336 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This fact was not disclosed in his application. The police authorities discovered this discrepancy, leading to the rejection of his candidature.

The respondent challenged this rejection, arguing that the offenses were trivial and that he had not intentionally suppressed the information. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur initially ruled in his favor, directing the state to reconsider his application. The State of Rajasthan appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

Further complicating the matter, additional FIRs were filed against the respondent after his initial application. While he was acquitted in some cases due to compromise, he was convicted in one case, although he was given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Despite these developments, the High Court upheld the order to reconsider his application, which prompted the State to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The respondent initially filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur, challenging the rejection of his candidature. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, directing the State to reconsider his case, primarily on the grounds that the offenses were trivial and the suppression of such information should have been ignored, relying on the judgment in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471. The State appealed this decision to the Division Bench of the High Court.

The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s order, leading the State to file an appeal before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent faced additional criminal charges, with some cases resulting in acquittals due to compromise and one conviction where he was given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Despite these developments, the High Court maintained its stance, which the Supreme Court ultimately overturned.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the recruitment notification, which required candidates to provide correct information in their application forms. Specifically, paragraph 9(e) of the notification stated that if the information disclosed was found to be wrong or incomplete, the application was liable to be rejected at any stage of the selection process. This provision was central to the State’s argument that the respondent’s suppression of his criminal case justified the rejection of his candidature.

The Court also considered the implications of suppressing material facts in the context of public service, particularly in uniformed services like the police force. The judgment discusses the importance of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness for individuals in such positions. The Court referred to several precedents to reinforce its position that suppression of material facts, even if the offenses are considered minor, can be a valid ground for rejecting a candidate.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is relevant, as the respondent faced charges under various sections of the IPC, such as Sections 143, 341, 336, 147, 148, 149, 452, 380, 352, 427, 323 and 382. The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was also mentioned, as the respondent was given its benefit in one of the criminal cases.

Arguments

Arguments by the State of Rajasthan:

• The State argued that the respondent suppressed material facts about his criminal antecedents in his job application. Despite facing criminal prosecution under FIR No. 458/2007, he declared “No” to the question of whether any criminal case had been registered against him.
• The State contended that a candidate who suppresses material facts and makes false statements cannot be trusted to serve as a constable, whose duty is to maintain law and order. Honesty and integrity are paramount for such a role.
• The State relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 and Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India, (2010) 14 SCC 103 to support its position that suppression of material facts is sufficient grounds for rejection.
• The State also highlighted that even after the initial rejection, the respondent faced 3-4 more FIRs, with some cases ending in acquittals due to compromise and one conviction where he was given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. One criminal case is still pending against him.

Arguments by the Respondent (Chetan Jeff):

• The respondent argued that the offenses against him were trivial, and he was acquitted in most cases. In one case, he was given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
• The respondent contended that both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court had rightly directed the State to consider his case, and this should not be interfered with by the Supreme Court.
• The respondent argued that since the High Court had given cogent reasons for directing his case to be considered, the Supreme Court should not exercise its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to overturn the decision.

[TABLE] of Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the Court addressed was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in directing the State to consider the case of the respondent for appointment as a constable, despite the respondent suppressing material facts about his criminal antecedents in his job application.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several key authorities to support its decision. These authorities were used to emphasize the importance of truthfulness and integrity in public service, particularly in uniformed services.

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Paragraph 9(e) of the 2008 Recruitment Notification: This provision stated that if the information disclosed in the application form was found to be wrong or incomplete, the application was liable to be rejected at any stage of the selection process.
• Sections 143, 341, and 336 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: These are the sections under which the initial FIR was registered against the respondent.
• Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 380, 352, 427, 323 and 382 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: These are the sections under which the subsequent FIRs were registered against the respondent.
• The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: This act was mentioned as the respondent was given its benefit in one of the criminal cases.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471: The court cited this case to support its view that even if a candidate makes a truthful disclosure about a concluded case, the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents and is not compelled to appoint such a candidate.
• Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India, (2010) 14 SCC 103: The court used this case to emphasize that the purpose of seeking information about antecedents is to assess the suitability of the candidate, and that suppression of material information is a valid ground for rejection.
• State of A.P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu, (2005) 2 SCC 746: This case was cited to emphasize that a candidate who suppresses material information or gives false information cannot claim any right for appointment.
• Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal, (2013) 9 SCC 363: The court used this case to reiterate that the issue is not the suitability for the post, but the suppression of information, which amounts to moral turpitude.
• Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P., (2012) 8 SCC 748: This case was cited to highlight that the standard expected of a person in uniformed service is distinct, and any deliberate omission regarding vital information can be seriously viewed.
• State of M.P. v. Abhijit Singh Pawar, (2018) 18 SCC 733: The court referred to this case to reinforce that even with truthful disclosure, the employer has the right to consider antecedents.
• Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited v. Anil Kanwariya, (2021) 10 SCC 136: This case was used to emphasize that even if an employee subsequently gets the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, it does not negate the fact that they made a false declaration at the time of application.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Suppression of Material Facts: The Court emphasized that the respondent’s failure to disclose the pending criminal case in his application form was a serious breach of trust and a clear violation of the recruitment notification.
• Importance of Honesty and Integrity: The Court highlighted that honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness are paramount for a constable, whose duty is to maintain law and order. A candidate who suppresses material facts cannot be considered suitable for such a position.
• Precedents on Suppression of Information: The Court relied on several precedents to reinforce its position that suppression of material facts, even if the offenses are considered minor, can be a valid ground for rejecting a candidate.
• Subsequent Criminal Cases: The Court also considered the fact that the respondent faced additional criminal charges after his initial application, which further undermined his suitability for the post.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the argument that the offenses were trivial, stating that the issue was not the nature of the offenses, but the suppression of material facts. The Court emphasized that a candidate for a uniformed service must be honest and trustworthy, and suppressing information about criminal antecedents demonstrates a lack of integrity. The Court also considered the subsequent criminal cases against the respondent, which further supported its decision to uphold the rejection of his candidature.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in directing the State to consider the respondent’s case. The Court stated that the High Court should have considered the fact that the respondent had suppressed material information in his application form. The Supreme Court also noted that the subsequent criminal cases against the respondent further undermined his suitability for the post.

The Court’s decision was based on a thorough analysis of the facts, the relevant legal provisions, and the precedents set by the Supreme Court. The Court’s reasoning was clear and consistent, emphasizing the importance of honesty and integrity in public service.

“The question is not whether the offences were trivial in nature or not. The question is one of suppression of material fact by the original writ petitioner in respect of his criminal antecedents and making a false statement in the application form.”

“If in the beginning itself, he has suppressed the material fact in respect to his criminal antecedents and in fact made an incorrect statement, how can he be appointed as a constable. How can he be trusted thereafter in future? How it is expected that thereafter he will perform his duty honestly and with integrity?”

“The choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to the employer. At the cost of repetition, it is observed and as observed hereinabove in catena of decision such an employee cannot claim the appointment and/or continue to be in service as a matter of right.”

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Truthful Disclosure: Candidates applying for government jobs, especially in uniformed services, must provide truthful and complete information about their criminal antecedents.
• Suppression of Facts is a Serious Matter: Suppressing material facts in a job application, even if the offenses are considered minor, can lead to rejection of candidature.
• Integrity in Public Service: Honesty and integrity are paramount for public servants, particularly those in law enforcement.
• Employer’s Discretion: Employers have the discretion to reject candidates who have suppressed material facts or made false statements, even if they have been acquitted in criminal cases.
• Subsequent Events: Courts may consider subsequent events, such as additional criminal cases, when assessing a candidate’s suitability for a public service position.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions other than quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and holding that the candidature of the respondent – original writ petitioner for the post of constable had been rightly rejected by the appropriate authority.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that suppression of material facts regarding criminal antecedents and making a false statement in the application form is a valid ground for rejecting the candidature for the post of constable. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position that honesty and integrity are paramount for public servants, and that employers have the discretion to reject candidates who have suppressed material information, regardless of the nature of the offenses or subsequent acquittals.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Chetan Jeff underscores the critical importance of honesty and integrity for public servants, particularly in uniformed services. The Court held that suppressing material facts about criminal antecedents is a serious breach of trust and a valid ground for rejecting a candidate’s application. The judgment overturns the High Court’s decision and reinforces the principle that employers have the discretion to reject candidates who have not been truthful in their applications. This decision serves as a reminder to all job applicants to provide complete and accurate information, particularly in sensitive positions of public service.