Service Law — Recruitment — Suppression of criminal antecedents
Recruitment to public post — Disclosure of criminal case — Requirement under notification — Scope — Effect of acquittal — Termination after provisional selection — Validity.
A. Recruitment notification — Disclosure of criminal cases — Binding nature
Recruitment and disqualification must strictly conform to the terms of the notification.
Where the notification and application form do not require disclosure of pendency of criminal cases, disqualification on that basis is impermissible.
(Paras 5, 11, 18–19)
B. Suppression of facts — Criminal antecedents — When material
Only such information as is specifically required under the recruitment notification can be treated as material suppression.
Disclosure cannot be insisted upon through affidavits or verification forms beyond the scope of the notification.
(Paras 18–19)
C. Criminal case — Acquittal on merits — Effect on employment
Where the candidate is acquitted on merits for want of evidence, such acquittal amounts to an honourable acquittal and disentitles the employer from denying appointment solely on the ground of prior involvement in a criminal case.
(Paras 14–16)
D. Mere involvement in criminal case — Not automatic disqualification
Mere involvement in a criminal case, particularly as a co-accused, cannot be a ground to deny public employment when the candidate stands acquitted and the prosecution case is not proved.
(Paras 13–16)
E. Family members implicated in matrimonial offences
In offences under Section 498-A IPC, family members are often mechanically arrayed as accused, and such implication cannot by itself justify denial of employment after acquittal.
(Para 15)
F. Suppression — Not every non-disclosure fatal
Every suppression or non-disclosure does not automatically justify cancellation of appointment; the employer must consider the nature of offence, role attributed, and outcome of criminal proceedings.
(Paras 20–21)
G. Supreme Court precedents — Applicability
Principles laid down in Pawan Kumar v. Union of India (2022 INSC 498) and Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024 INSC 131) apply, holding that blanket disqualification for non-disclosure is impermissible and each case must be examined on its own facts.
(Paras 20–21)
FINAL ORDER
• Impugned proceedings dated 16-08-2023 set aside
• Writ petition allowed
• Direction to reinstate petitioner to the post of ADO
• No back wages
• Entitled to notional benefits including pay, seniority and consequential benefits
• No costs
(Para 22)
ANALYSIS OF FACTS
1. Recruitment process
• Notification issued on 21-01-2023
• Recruitment to the post of Apprentice Development Officer (ADO)
• About 112 posts notified in Machilipatnam Division
2. Petitioner’s participation
• Petitioner was working as LIC Agent
• Applied online on 30-01-2023
• Qualified written examination on 23-04-2023
• Attended interview on 21-06-2023
• Provisionally selected on 29-06-2023
• Issued appointment letter dated 14-07-2023
• Sent for training commencing 17-07-2023
3. Impugned action
• Proceedings dated 16-08-2023 issued by LIC
• Petitioner disqualified on two grounds:
-
Involvement in criminal case S.C. No.89 of 2016
-
Alleged suppression of information in affidavit dated 14-07-2023
4. Criminal case background
• Case registered primarily against petitioner’s brother
• Petitioner arrayed as Accused No.3
• Charge against petitioner only under Section 498-A IPC
• Judgment dated 26-02-2024:
-
Petitioner and his mother acquitted on merits
-
No evidence against petitioner
5. Tribunal / departmental stand
• Whistle Blower complaint received prior to appointment
• Enquiry held
• Reliance placed on affidavit stating no criminal cases pending
ANALYSIS OF LAW
1. Scope of recruitment notification
The Court examined:
• Recruitment notification
• Application format
and found:
• No column requiring disclosure of pendency of criminal case
• Clause (XXIII) required disclosure only of:
-
arrest
-
conviction
-
commitment to prison
-
preventive detention
-
insolvency
Pendency of criminal case was not included.
(Paras 17–19)
2. Disqualification beyond notification impermissible
The Court held:
• Recruitment must strictly follow notification terms
• Disqualification based on affidavit travels beyond notification
• Employer cannot introduce additional conditions post-selection
(Para 19)
3. Nature of acquittal
The criminal court held:
• No evidence against petitioner
• Acquittal under Section 235(1) CrPC
• Hence acquittal was on merits
(Paras 14–15)
4. Role of petitioner
• Petitioner implicated solely due to family relationship
• Allegations primarily against brother
• Court recognised routine roping-in of relatives in 498-A cases
(Para 15)
5. Supreme Court jurisprudence applied
The Court relied on:
• Pawan Kumar v. Union of India
• Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P.
Principles applied:
• Suppression not automatic disqualification
• Holistic and contextual assessment mandatory
• Honourable acquittal restores employment eligibility
(Paras 20–21)
6. Paradox noted by Court
The Court found it anomalous that:
• Petitioner was fit to continue as LIC agent generating business
• But considered unfit to serve as LIC officer
(Para 16)
RATIO DECIDENDI
The binding legal principle laid down is:
A candidate cannot be disqualified from public employment on the ground of suppression of criminal antecedents when the recruitment notification and application form do not require disclosure of pendency of criminal cases, and when the candidate has been acquitted on merits; mere involvement as a co-accused, particularly in matrimonial offences under Section 498-A IPC, does not constitute a valid ground to deny appointment, and every non-disclosure cannot be treated as fatal.
