Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against Income Tax Reassessment, Directs Petitioner to File Appeal Adultery Requires Proof of Sexual Relations, Mere Emotional Attachment is No Ground to Deny Maintenance: MP High Court Co-Sharer Cannot Sell Specific Land Without Partition: Punjab & Haryana High Court Declares Mutation Illegal When Best Evidence is Withheld, an Adverse Inference Must Be Drawn Against the Prosecution: Supreme Court Slams State for Procedural Lapses When the State Itself Did Not Challenge the Earlier Judgment, Third Parties Cannot Litigate on Its Behalf: Supreme Court When Parties Have Agreed to a Fixed Compensation, Courts Cannot Rewrite the Contract to Award Additional Damages: Supreme Court When an Employer Deprives an Employee of Work Through Illegal Action, They Must Face the Consequences: Supreme Court Condemns State Transport Corporation’s “Fraud on Court” Possession Handed Over Before the Sale Deed Makes the Agreement a Conveyance: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Against Stamp Duty Demand Promissory Estoppel Cannot Override Public Interest: Supreme Court Upholds Goa’s Power Tariff Rebate Withdrawal Tenants Cannot Stall Public Projects Indefinitely; Eviction Under MRTP Act is Legally Valid: Bombay High Court High Court Cannot Reassess Labour Court's Findings Like an Appellate Body: Delhi HC Consensual Physical Relationship Over Four Years Cannot Constitute Rape Under Section 376(2)(n): Karnataka High Court An Injured Witness Comes with a Built-In Guarantee of Truth: Allahabad HC Eviction Cannot Be Ordered Solely Because Evidence is Unrebutted: Kerala HC Encroachment Claims Do Not Justify Forcible Dispossession: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Injunction, Dismisses Appeal Limitation | An Educated Litigant Cannot Claim the Same Protection as an Illiterate One: Delhi HC Madras High Court Dismisses PhonePe’s Trademark Infringement Suit Against BundlePe & LatePe Bare Injunction Suit Unsustainable Without Declaration of Title When Ownership is Disputed: Karnataka High Court SARFASI | Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies Essential in SARFAESI Matters: Kerala High Court Once Penalty Period Ends, Employee Must Be Reconsidered for Promotion: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Discharge from Service for Non-Disclosure of Criminal Case Held Arbitrary, Reinstatement Ordered: Calcutta High Court

17 January 2025 11:06 AM

By: Deepak Kumar


Calcutta High Court setting aside his discharge from the Railway Protection Force (RPF) for allegedly suppressing information about a pending criminal case during the recruitment process. A Division Bench comprising Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee held that the omission was a bona fide mistake, untainted by fraud or dishonest intent, and directed his reinstatement.
The decision emphasizes the need for flexibility and fairness in assessing such lapses, especially when the alleged offenses are trivial, and the candidate has been honorably acquitted. The court applied principles laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471, which call for a holistic evaluation of the facts and circumstances in cases of alleged suppression during recruitment.
Ram Asheesh Yadav applied for the post of constable in the RPF and was provisionally selected in 2014. However, his recruitment was canceled in 2015, citing his failure to disclose a pending criminal case under Sections 341, 504, and 506 of the IPC in the attestation form. The criminal case, initiated in 2011, alleged minor offenses of wrongful restraint, criminal intimidation, and use of abusive language. Ram claimed he was unaware of the case's pendency at the time of filling out the form, having received summons only after submitting the attestation form.
Following his acquittal in 2015, Ram challenged his discharge through multiple legal proceedings. The Allahabad High Court quashed the initial discharge order in 2018, directing a fresh consideration, but a second discharge order was issued. When his subsequent writ petition was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, he filed a fresh petition before the Calcutta High Court, which upheld his discharge in 2024. Aggrieved, Ram appealed before the Division Bench.
The respondents argued that Ram deliberately suppressed information about the pending criminal case, violating the requirement of impeccable character for disciplined forces like the RPF. However, the court found that Ram’s omission was a bona fide mistake, not an act of fraud.
•    Ram was unaware of the case’s pendency at the time of filling out the attestation form. He had been granted bail in 2011 and received summons only in May 2014, after submitting the form.
•    The court noted that the offenses under Sections 341, 504, and 506 IPC were trivial and did not constitute “serious crimes” involving moral turpitude.
“Failure to state the pendency of the case, due to lack of knowledge, cannot be construed as suppression of material facts or dishonest intent.” 
The court emphasized that the offenses alleged against Ram were minor in nature and did not involve moral turpitude. In such cases, the employer is obligated to consider whether non-disclosure can be condoned.
“The offenses alleged, under Sections 341, 504, and 506 IPC, cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed as serious crimes. The employer failed to consider whether the omission was trivial and condonable.” 
The court applied the principles laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, which mandate a flexible approach in assessing omissions in disclosure. It held that trivial lapses, especially those arising from bona fide mistakes, do not disqualify candidates automatically.
•    The judgment in Pawan Kumar v. Union of India was also cited, highlighting the need for discretion and a holistic evaluation of facts, including the type of offense and the intent behind the omission.
“To mechanically treat every omission as fraud undermines the principles of fairness. A degree of flexibility is required to evaluate the context and intent.” 
The court criticized the employer’s rigid approach in discharging Ram without considering the facts holistically. It held that the employer failed to apply discretion, as required by the principles laid down in Avtar Singh.
“The employer’s refusal to exercise discretion in favor of the appellant, despite his honorable acquittal and lack of dishonest intent, was arbitrary and unreasonable.” 
While acknowledging the importance of character verification in disciplined forces, the court held that minor errors or omissions, particularly those arising from genuine mistakes, do not automatically render a candidate unsuitable.
“Mere wrong statements in the application, if immaterial for determining conduct, cannot tarnish the candidate’s suitability for disciplined forces.” 
The court held that Ram’s discharge was arbitrary and disproportionate, given the triviality of the offenses, his lack of knowledge about the case’s pendency, and his honorable acquittal. The earlier judgment of the Single Judge and the discharge order were set aside.
1.    Discharge Order Quashed: The court set aside the discharge order dated April 13, 2018, passed by the RPF authorities.
2.    Reinstatement Directed: Ram was directed to be reinstated to the post of constable in the RPF at the same stage where he was discharged. The reinstatement was to be completed within eight weeks.
3.    No Costs Imposed: The court declined to impose costs, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness.
“The order of discharge suffers from the vice of arbitrariness… The refusal to exercise discretion in favor of the appellant cannot be construed as reasonable.” 
This judgment reinforces the principle that trivial lapses in disclosure, arising from bona fide mistakes, should not lead to severe consequences like dismissal from service, particularly when the offenses are minor and the candidate has been honorably acquitted. It underscores the need for flexibility, fairness, and discretion in disciplinary matters, especially in recruitment to disciplined forces.
The ruling also serves as a reminder to employers to consider the facts and intent holistically rather than mechanically applying strict rules, which can result in unjust outcomes.

 

Date of Decision: January 9, 2025
 

Similar News