STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS. versus GOBINDA BEHERA

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 643 · Decided: 31-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
643
STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS.
v.
GOBINDA BEHERA
(Civil Appeal No. 893 of 2020)
JANUARY 31, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Service Law – Respondent applied for appointment to the post
of Constable in Odisha State Police specifically stating in his
application that he was not involved in any criminal case –
Appointed – During verification, it was found that he was involved
in a case u/ss.294/323/324/326/336/337/427/379/506/34, IPC –
Respondent was discharged from service – Odisha Administrative
Tribunal rejected Original Application (OA) filed by the respondent
– Reversed by High Court – On appeal, held: Respondent was
seeking public employment in the State police service – His duties,
on appointment to the service, would be of a responsible character,
bearing intrinsically on the maintenance of law and order and with
consequences for personal liberty of citizens – To expect that an
applicant for such a position would be truthful in the disclosure of
information sought about the antecedents is a justifiable basis for
assessment of personality and character – Case against the
respondent cannot be regarded as being trivial in nature – Despite
being involved in the criminal case, the respondent suppressed these
facts – Criminal case was quashed in exercise of jurisdiction u/
s.482, CrPC on the basis of compromise between the parties much
after the order of discharge – Impugned order set aside – Order of
the Tribunal maintained – OA filed by the respondent is dismissed –
Orissa Police Rules – r.673.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The respondent was seeking public employment
in the State police service. His duties, on appointment to the
service, would be of a responsible character, bearing intrinsically
on the maintenance of law and order and with consequences for
personal liberty of citizens. To expect that an applicant for such a
position would be truthful in the disclosure of information sought
about the antecedents is a justifiable basis for assessment of
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 643
643
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
644
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
personality and character. The employer can legitimately conclude
that a person who has suppressed material facts does not deserve
to be in its employment. In the present case, the case against the
respondent cannot be regarded as being trivial in nature. That
apart, it is evident that, despite being involved in the criminal
case, the respondent suppressed these facts from the authorities
while applying for the post of a Constable in the State Police. The
criminal case was quashed in exercise of the jurisdiction under
Section 482 of CrPC on the basis of a compromise between the
parties much after the order of discharge. Hence, the view which
has been taken by the High Court is palpably unsustainable. The
Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application. The impugned
judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. While
maintaining the order of the Tribunal, the OA filed by the
respondent shall stand dismissed. [Paras 7, 8][647-H; 648-A-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 893 of
2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.03.2018 of the High Court
of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P. (C) No. 21868 of 2015.
Shibashish Misra, S. Debabrata Reddy, Chandan Kumar Mandal,
Advs. for the Appellants.
Azim H. Laskar, Sachin Das, Adtiya Kumar Archiya, Ms. Sampa
Sengupta Ray, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal arises from a judgment and order of a Division
Bench of the High Court of Orissa dated 29 March 2018.
4. The respondent applied for appointment to the post of a
Constable in the Odisha State Police in the 6th IR Batallion, Khurda on
29 October 2011. In response to a query, the respondent specifically
stated in his application that he was not involved in any criminal case.
He was appointed on 14 December 2011. A verification roll was provided
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
645
to him, which was to be filled up in terms of Rule 673 of the Orissa
Police Rules. On 22 May 2012, the Superintendent of Police, Puri informed
the Commandant that during the course of the verification of the character
and antecedents of the respondent, it was found that he was involved in
Balanga PS Case No 46 of 2009 under Sections 294/323/324/326/336/
337/427/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code 18601. On 6 July 2012, the
respondent wa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.