CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Supreme Court Reinstates Constable Cancelled for Non-disclosure of Acquitted Case: Non-Disclosure in Verification Form Not Always Fatal

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court in a landmark decision on February 22, 2024, dealt with the crucial question of whether non-disclosure of a criminal case, in which the candidate was acquitted, in the verification form is invariably fatal for the candidate’s employment. The bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, in the case of Ravindra Kumar vs State of U.P. & Ors, held that such non-disclosure should not always lead to the cancellation of employment, emphasizing that each case must be assessed based on its special facts and circumstances.

The case revolved around the cancellation of Ravindra Kumar's selection as a constable due to his failure to disclose a criminal case in which he was acquitted. The Supreme Court examined whether this non-disclosure, as per the recruitment rules and character verification requirements, justifies the cancellation of his appointment.

Ravindra Kumar was embroiled in a criminal case for offences under Sections 324, 352, and 504 of the IPC, just five days after applying for the post of Constable. He was acquitted of all charges, but he did not disclose this case in his affidavit for character verification. As a result, his selection was cancelled by the authorities, citing Clause 9 of the Recruitment Notification and the Affidavit’s provisions.

The Court, referencing various precedents including Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others (2016), emphasized the importance of objective criteria in deciding employment eligibility in cases involving non-disclosure of criminal cases. The Court observed, "Each case will turn on the special facts and circumstances," and that the ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria.

The Court found that Ravindra Kumar's non-disclosure was not willful or with the intention to deceive. His acquittal, the character verification report, and his socio-economic background played a significant role in the Court's decision. The judgement stressed the need for a nuanced approach in such cases, acknowledging the varied realities in a diverse country like India.

The Court allowed Ravindra Kumar's appeal, setting aside the previous orders. It directed his reinstatement to the post of Constable with all notional benefits except arrears of salary. The judgement signifies a progressive step towards a more empathetic and contextual adjudication in matters of employment eligibility, particularly in cases of non-disclosure of criminal records.

Date of Decision: 22 February 2024

Ravindra Kumar vs State of U.P. & Ors

Latest Legal News