Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization

"Supreme Court Directs State to Consider Appointment of Constable, Says 'No Suppression of Material Information'"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has directed the State of West Bengal to consider the appointment of a respondent as a constable in the West Bengal Police Force. The Court stated that there was "no suppression of material information" by the respondent, thereby overturning the State's argument against his appointment.

The Bench, consisting of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, delivered the judgment earlier today. The case revolved around the State's appeal against a High Court judgment that had initially directed the appointment of the respondent.

The Supreme Court observed that the verification roll used for the recruitment process was "vague" and did not specifically ask about pending criminal cases. "The respondent had answered 'No' to a question about being 'arrested, detained, or convicted,' which the Court deemed appropriate given the phrasing of the question," the judgment read.

Further, the Court noted that the respondent was acquitted in a criminal case that "did not involve heinous or serious offences or moral turpitude." The Court stated, "The prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the respondent."

In its decision, the Court also referred to the case of "Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471" to emphasize the guidelines for dealing with suppression of information and the effect of conviction/acquittal on employment.

The Supreme Court modified the High Court's order and directed the State to consider the respondent's case for appointment within four weeks. However, the Court clarified that the respondent would only be entitled to "notional benefits," including continuity in service and pay fixation, but not salary and back wages until the date of his appointment.

Date of Decision: 22 August 2023

State of West Bengal & Ors. vs Mitul Kumar Jana       

Latest Legal News