Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Constable Appointment for Non-Disclosure of Criminal Case: Director General of Police vs. J. Raghunees (20 October 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 20 October 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 944

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Pankaj Mithal, J.

Can a candidate for a police constable position be denied employment for not disclosing a past criminal case in which they were acquitted? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent judgment. This case examines the importance of transparency and full disclosure by candidates, particularly in disciplined services like the police force. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Pankaj Mithal.

Case Background

The respondent, J. Raghunees, was selected for the post of Grade-II Constable after passing the written test. As part of the selection process, a verification of his character and antecedents was conducted. During this inquiry, it was discovered that Raghunees had been involved in a criminal case in 1997 (Case Crime No. 392 of 1997) under Sections 341, 323, 324, and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code, where he was the third accused. Although he was acquitted by the Trial Court on 19 February 2001, he did not disclose this information in his attestation form.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The authorities rejected J. Raghunees’s appointment on 9 November 2004, citing his failure to disclose his involvement in the criminal case in column 15 of the attestation form. Raghunees challenged this order through a writ petition in the High Court, which was initially dismissed by a Single Judge. However, a Division Bench of the High Court overturned the Single Judge’s decision, allowing the writ appeal. The Division Bench reasoned that since Raghunees was acquitted before the verification, he had “bona fidely failed” to mention it, and this should not disqualify him from service. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, then appealed to the Supreme Court against this decision.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978: This rule outlines the eligibility criteria for recruitment to the State Police Service, stating that a candidate’s character and antecedents must qualify them for service. The rule states:
  
  “14(b) No person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority.
  
  i) that he is of sound health, active habits and free from any bodily defect or infirmity unfitting him for such service and
  
  ii) that the character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service.
  
  iii) that such a person does not have more than one wife living.”
• Column 15 of the Verification Roll: This column specifically asks, “Have you ever been concerned in any criminal case as defendant?”
  
  The Court noted that this question is unequivocal and requires disclosure of any past or present involvement in a criminal case, regardless of the outcome.

Arguments

The core issue was whether J. Raghunees’s non-disclosure of his involvement in the criminal case amounted to suppression of material facts, thus disqualifying him from employment.

Arguments of the Appellant (Director General of Police)

• The appellant argued that the respondent’s failure to disclose his involvement in the criminal case in column 15 of the verification roll was a clear suppression of material information.

• The appellant submitted that the question in column 15 of the verification roll was unambiguous and required the disclosure of any involvement in a criminal case, irrespective of the outcome.

• The appellant contended that the respondent’s acquittal, whether honorable or by benefit of doubt, did not negate the fact that he was indeed involved in a criminal case, which he was obligated to disclose.

• The appellant emphasized that for a disciplined force like the police, the character and antecedents of the candidate are of utmost importance, and any suppression of information casts doubt on the integrity of the candidate.

• The appellant relied on the judgment in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 471 to support their argument that a candidate must provide true information about their criminal history, and any suppression can lead to disqualification.

Arguments of the Respondent (J. Raghunees)

• The respondent argued that he was acquitted in the criminal case before the verification process, and he believed his involvement was no longer relevant.

• The respondent contended that his non-disclosure was not willful or intentional, but a bona fide mistake, as he thought the acquittal made the past involvement inconsequential.

• The respondent argued that the High Court correctly held that his acquittal, especially since it was considered an honorable acquittal, should not be a ground for denying him employment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the respondent is guilty of suppression of material fact with regard to his involvement in the above criminal case so as to disentitle him to employment.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the principles laid down in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 471, which emphasized the importance of truthful disclosure by candidates regarding their criminal history.
• The Court considered Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 to highlight that the character and antecedents of the candidate are relevant and material factors for giving him entry in the service.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of transparency and full disclosure by candidates, particularly in disciplined services like the police force. The Court reasoned that suppressing information about a criminal case, even if the candidate was acquitted, casts a serious doubt on their character and integrity. The Court was not swayed by the respondent’s argument that he believed his past involvement was no longer relevant after his acquittal. The Court also highlighted that the question in the verification roll was clear and required full disclosure, regardless of the outcome of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered and rejected the argument that the acquittal made the past involvement irrelevant. The Court reasoned that the suppression of information itself was a serious matter, regardless of the outcome of the criminal case. The Court also emphasized that the nature of the service, being a disciplined force, required a higher standard of integrity and transparency.

The Supreme Court stated:

• “The issue in the matter is not of eligibility of the respondent to the post in the light of Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules ,1978 rather that of suppression of material information which was required to be disclosed in column 15 of the verification rol l.”
• “His honorable acquittal or acquittal by giving benefit of doubt is not material and relevant but what is relevant is the full and complete disclosure of the information regarding his involvement in a criminal case which has been suppressed by him.”
• “Keeping in mind that the respondent was a candidate for recruitment to a disciplined force , the non -disclosure of the information of his involvement in the criminal case and subsequent acquitt al therefrom cast a serious doubt upon his character and the antecedents which is sufficient enough to disentitle him from employmen t.”

Key Takeaways

• Full Disclosure is Mandatory: Candidates must truthfully disclose all information about their criminal history, regardless of the outcome of the case.
• Suppression of Facts is Serious: Non-disclosure of material facts, even if unintentional, can lead to disqualification from employment, especially in disciplined services.
• Acquittal is Not a Bar to Disclosure: An acquittal in a criminal case does not negate the obligation to disclose the past involvement in the case.
• Integrity is Paramount: For disciplined forces, integrity and transparency are of utmost importance, and any doubt cast on a candidate’s character can be a ground for rejection.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and restored the order of the Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed by J. Raghunees. The appeal was allowed, and there were no orders as to costs.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that non-disclosure of involvement in a criminal case, irrespective of acquittal, constitutes a suppression of material fact that can disqualify a candidate from employment, particularly in disciplined services. This judgment reinforces the principle that transparency and full disclosure are essential for maintaining the integrity of public service, especially in law enforcement. This judgment reaffirms the position of law established in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 471, and does not introduce any new legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu vs. J. Raghunees underscores the critical importance of honesty and transparency in the recruitment process for public service, especially for disciplined forces like the police. The Court held that the respondent’s non-disclosure of his involvement in a criminal case, despite his acquittal, was a suppression of material fact that justified the rejection of his appointment. This judgment serves as a reminder that candidates must provide complete and accurate information, and any attempt to conceal relevant details can have serious consequences.