-
by sayum
12 May 2026 2:28 PM
Orissa High Court quashed the rejection of the petitioner’s appointment as a Fireman in Odisha Fire Services, which had been denied on the grounds of alleged suppression of his involvement in a criminal case. The court held that there was no suppression of material facts, as the FIR was lodged after the petitioner submitted his application, and that the subsequent acquittal warranted a fresh review of his candidature.
The petitioner, Kalakar Bentakar, was selected for the post of Fireman in the Odisha Fire Service after successfully passing a recruitment test conducted in 2015. However, his appointment was denied by the Director General of Police, Fire Services, based on an alleged suppression of his involvement in a criminal case. The criminal case involved charges under Sections 294, 292A, 354A, 354D, 506, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The petitioner contended that he had no knowledge of the criminal case at the time of submitting his application on December 19, 2014, as the FIR was filed on December 5, 2014, and he was arrested only on January 10, 2015. He also argued that he fully disclosed the pending criminal case in the Verification Roll prior to his appointment, after becoming aware of the FIR. The trial court later acquitted him of all charges on February 14, 2020, as the prosecution failed to prove the allegations, with key witnesses turning hostile.
"No Suppression of Material Facts by Petitioner"
The court found that the petitioner had disclosed all relevant information in the Verification Roll once he became aware of the criminal case and that he could not be faulted for not mentioning it in his original application, as the FIR and arrest occurred after its submission.
"The petitioner appropriately disclosed the factual position with regard to the criminal case in the Verification Roll, as the FIR was not within his knowledge at the time of submitting his application." [Para 8.4]
The court ruled that the rejection of his appointment was based on an erroneous understanding of the facts, and there was no suppression of material information on the petitioner’s part.
"Clean Acquittal Mandates Reconsideration of Appointment"
The court emphasized that the petitioner’s acquittal in the criminal case was a clean acquittal, as the prosecution failed to substantiate the allegations, and the primary witness did not support the charges during the trial.
"The clean acquittal of the petitioner required the appointing authority to objectively reconsider the petitioner’s suitability for the post, rather than focusing on the alleged suppression of facts." [Para 9.6]
The court cited State of Rajasthan v. Love Kush Meena and other judgments to underline that a clean acquittal necessitates a fresh assessment of the candidate’s suitability, particularly when the charges involve minor or unsubstantiated allegations.
The court criticized the Director General of Police for failing to properly apply judicious discretion when rejecting the petitioner’s appointment. It held that the rejection order was based on a misapprehension of facts and improper application of law, warranting judicial intervention.
"The impugned order cannot withstand judicial scrutiny, as it is based on an erroneous appreciation of the material on record." [Para 8.14]
The Orissa High Court quashed the rejection order and directed the Director General of Police, Fire Service, Home Guards & Civil Defence, Odisha to reconsider the petitioner’s application for appointment as Fireman within eight weeks based on the correct understanding of facts and law.
Date of Decision:October 21, 2024
Kalakar Bentakar v. State of Odisha & Others
