STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. versus CHETAN JEFF

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 692 · Decided: 11-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
692
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
v.
CHETAN JEFF
(Civil Appeal No. 3116 of 2022)
MAY 11, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Appointment – Post of Constable – Suppression
of material fact by the candidate in respect of his criminal
antecedents and making false statement in the job application form
– Rejection of his candidature – Writ petition by the candidate –
Single Judge of the High Court held that the offences for which the
candidate was charged with of trivial in nature and their suppression
should have been ignored thus, the State directed to consider him
for the post – Upheld by the Division Bench – On appeal, held: It is
the duty of the constable is to maintain law and order – Thus, he/
she is expected to be honest, trustworthy, reliable and with integrity
above the board – Any act in deceit and subterfuge cannot be
tolerated – On facts, the candidate did not confirm to the said
expectations/requirements – He suppressed the material facts of his
criminal antecedents and did not disclose in the application form
that against him a criminal case/FIR is pending – On the contrary,
he made false statement that he is not facing any criminal case –
Also, during the proceedings before the High Courts, the candidate
faced 3 to 4 more FIRs, out of which, in two cases he was acquitted
by entering into a compromise and in other he was convicted,
however given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act – Thus,
the authorities justified in rejecting his candidature – Judgment
and order of the High Court quashed and set aside – Subsequent
events.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The post on which the respondent is seeking
the appointment is the post of constable. It cannot be disputed
that the duty of the constable is to maintain law and order.
Therefore, it is expected that he should be honest, trustworthy
and that his integrity is above board and that he is reliable. An
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 692
692
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
693
employee in the uniformed service presupposes a higher level
of integrity as such a person is expected to uphold the law and on
the contrary any act in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated.
In the instant case, the respondent has not confirmed to the above
expectations/ requirements. He suppressed the material facts of
his criminal antecedents. He did not disclose in the application
form that against him a criminal case/FIR is pending. On the
contrary, in the application form, he made a false statement that
he is not facing any criminal case. Therefore, due to the said
suppression, his candidature came to be rejected by the
appropriate authority. Despite the above, the Single Judge of the
High Court allowed the writ petitioner and directed the State to
consider the case of the respondent for appointment as a
constable mainly on the ground that the offences were trivial in
nature and the suppression of such offences should have been
ignored. The same was upheld by the Division Bench. [Para
6.1][700-A-D]
1.2 The question is one of suppression of material fact by
the original writ petitioner in respect of his criminal antecedents
and making a false statement in the application form. If in the
beginning itself, he has suppressed the material fact in respect
to his criminal antecedents and in fact made an incorrect
statement, how can he be appointed as a constable. How can he
be trusted thereafter in future? How it is expected that thereafter
he will perform his duty honestly and with integrity? Therefore,
as such the authorities were justified in rejecting the candidature
of the respondent for the post of constable. [Paras 6.2 and
6.3][700-E-F]
1.3 It cannot be said that the authority committed any error
in rejecting the candidature of the respondent for the post of
constable. [Para 7][706-D]
1.4 Even otherwise it is required to be noted that
subsequently and during the proceedings before the Single Judge
as well as the Division Bench, there are three to four other FIRs
filed against the respondent culminating into criminal trials and
in two cases he has been acquitted on the ground of compromise
and in one case though convicted, he has been granted the benefit
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. CHETAN JEFF
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
694
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
of Probation of Offenders Act. One more criminal case is pending
against him. Therefore, the respondent cannot be appointed to
such a post of constable. [Para 8][706-E]
1.5 In view t

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