Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta 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

Similar News