UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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