Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Kuljeet Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan … on 21 March, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:15403]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11588/2023
Kuljeet Singh S/o Late Shri Rajendra Singh, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Village 2Ffa, Via Gajsinghpur, Tehsil Srikaranpur,
District Sriganganagar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad
Sriganganagar.
3. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Srikaranpur,
District Sriganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Firoda
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
21/03/2025
1. While serving as Gram Sewak-Village Development Officer
(‘VDO’), petitioner’s father died in harness on 08.05.2022. Being
dependent son of the deceased Gram Sewak, he seeks benefit of
the compassionate appointment policy. However, vide the
impugned letter dated 19.09.2022 (Annexure-9), it was informed
that since there is a pending criminal case against him in the court
of the Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur, arising out of an FIR
No.92/2016 dated 29.06.2016 for offences under Sections 341,
323, and 143 of the IPC, he is ineligible for government
(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 10:13:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:15403] (2of 19) [CW-11588/2023]
employment and that his claim will be considered after conclusion
of the Court case. Hence the instant petition.
2. The facts leading to this writ petition are; being one of the
dependents of the deceased government employee, petitioner
submitted an application dated 15.06.2022 for appointment on
compassionate grounds, along with the required documents.
2.1. During the pendency of his aforesaid application, one
Jasvinder Singh complained vide his letter dated 31.05.2022 that
petitioner cannot be granted appointment due to the pending FIR
(criminal case arising there from) against him, as noted above.
Jasvinder Singh is the complainant in the FIR.
2.3. Resultantly, vide office letter dated 19.09.2022, assailed
herein, the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, informed the
petitioner that in terms of circular letter dated 04.12.2019 issued
by the Personnel Department, State of Rajasthan, he was found
ineligible.
3. The stand taken by the respondents, inter alia, is that, in the
application seeking compassionate appointment, the petitioner
himself did not disclose the fact of the criminal case registered
against him. Instead, Jaswinder Singh, the complainant who
lodged the FIR, raised the objection by informing the department
about the pendency of the criminal case against him.
3.1. It is stated that charges were framed against the petitioner
under Sections 341/34, 323/34, 324/34, and 325/34 of the IPC on
18.04.2019. Trial is currently pending before the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur. Thus, in accordance with the
Circular dated 04.12.2019 issued by the Department of Personnel,
(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 10:13:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:15403] (3of 19) [CW-11588/2023]
appointment to the petitioner has been rightly declined. Writ
petition be, therefore, dismissed.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for
the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents and
have gone through the case file.
5. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
in the prescribed proforma, to be filled up as the job application,
submitted by the petitioner, there was no column in the proforma
which required the petitioner to disclose the information about his
involvement in any criminal case. Thus, there is/was no
concealment on the part of the petitioner. In any case, mere
pendency of a criminal case does not per-se render the petitioner
ineligible for appointment. More so, when it does not affect the
nature and dignity of the post for which he sought appointment.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents argues on the lines of
the stand in their written reply in support of their action. He seeks
dismissal of the petition.
7 Having heard both sides and perused the record, I am of the
opinion that the petition merits being allowed. Let us see how, by
recording reasons thereof, after analysis and discussion of the
applicable law and interpretation of circular dated 04.12.2019,
ibid.
8. First and foremost, I am unable to accept the respondents’
contention that, owing to misrepresentation or concealment, the
petitioner is not entitled to any relief, because at the time of
submitting the application for compassionate appointment he did
not disclose the fact of the criminal case registered against him.
(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 10:13:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:15403] (4of 19) [CW-11588/2023]
9. Indisputably, the application for compassionate appointment
was required to be submitted in the proforma prescribed by the
respondents. The proforma for application had no column or
question to elicit information about the candidate’s involvement in
any criminal case. The petitioner simply filled up the information
as per the prescribed columns and submitted his application
Annexure-A-5. As there was no column or question in the
application proforma to evoke information about the candidate’s
involvement in any criminal case, the petitioner cannot be blamed
for concealment or non-disclosure, let alone, intentional non-
disclosure of the fact of involvement in the criminal case.
10. Even, qua the alleged misrepresentation, as canvassed by
learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner cannot be held
guilty for the same very reason i.e. when the prescribed
application proforma itself did not mandate disclosure of pending
criminal proceedings. In the absence of any such requirement, the
petitioner duly complied with all other formalities. No inference of
misrepresentation can, therefore, be drawn. Further, the
pendency of criminal case does appear to be involving allegations
that either impinge upon integrity, moral turpitude, or suitability
for public service. Such a pendency, ought not, by itself, disentitle
a candidate from being considered for appointment, if otherwise
fit, suited and eligible. Moreover, compassionate appointment is a
welfare measure intended to alleviate the penury/financial
hardship faced by the dependents due to sudden death of their
sole bread winner deceased employee, by providing immediate
(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 10:13:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:15403] (5of 19) [CW-11588/2023]
succor to the family, and its denial on hyper-technical grounds
would defeat its very object.
11. Moving further, in Bheemsen Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors.1 (decided recently vide judgment dated 17.03.2025 by this
very Bench), while submitting an on-line application for the post of
Constable Driver, the petitioner in response to the column
“whether any FIR has ever been lodged against you?” had
answered “No”. However, during verification, it was discovered
that an FIR under sections 323/324/147/148/149 IPC had been
lodged against him. The respondents’ stance was that owing to
concealment of material act, the petitioner was not entitled to any
relief. This contention was rejected by relying upon the Apex Court
judgment in Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors.2, decided on 22ndFebruary 2024. Relevant thereof
(Bheemsen’s judgment) is extracted hereinbelow:-
“5. No doubt at the time of filling up the online application for the
post in question the petitioner did not disclose the factum of
registration of an FIR against him. Reasons are not far to seek. He
must have been in a dilemma that in case he discloses the same,
there was high prospect of being disqualified at that very stage. He
will not be allowed to participate in the selection process. Moreover,
his dilemma seems to have arisen from his bona fide belief that he
was falsely implicated in the FIR, as no role of any kind was
attributed to him. He was not even a principal accused, though, of
course, was arrayed as accused being part of assembly of people
who were present at the scene of occurrence, which led to
registration of FIR
6. In somewhat similar circumstances, in the case of Ravindra
Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.
5902/2012), decided on 22ndFebruary 2024, Supreme Court
addressed an issue akin to what is herein, where a candidate who
had explicitly stated in an affidavit that no criminal proceedings
were pending against him. While dealing with this situation, the
Supreme Court observed as under:-
1 S.B.C.W.P. No.9380/2021
2 Civil Appeal No.5902/2012, decided on 22.02.2024
(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 10:13:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:15403] (6of 19) [CW-11588/2023]“29. xxx xxx xxx While examining whether the
procedure adopted for enquiry by the authority was fair and
reasonable, we find that the order of cancellation of
12.04.2005 does not even follow the mandate prescribed in
Clause 4 of the Form of verification of character set out in the
earlier part of this judgment. Like it was found in Ram
Kumar (supra) instead of considering whether the appellant
was suitable for appointment, the Appointing Authority has
mechanically held his selection was irregular and illegal
because the appellant had furnished an affidavit with
incorrect facts. Hence, even applying the board principles set
out in para 93.7 of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra), we find
that the order of cancellation dated 12.04.2005 is neither fair
nor reasonable. Clause 9 of the recruitment notification has to
be read in the context of the law laid down in the cases set out
hereinabove.
30. On the facts of the case and in the backdrop of the
special circumstances set out hereinabove, where does the
non-disclosure of the unfortunate criminal case, (which too
ended in acquittal), stand in the scheme of things? In our
opinion on the peculiar facts of the case, we do not think it
can be deemed fatal for the appellant. Board-brushing every
non-disclosure as a disqualification, will be unjust and the
same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the
ground realities obtaining in this great, vast and diverse
country. Each case will depend on the facts and circumstances
that prevail thereon, and the court will have to take a holistic
view, based on objective criteria, with the available
precedents serving as a guide. It can never be a one size fits
all scenario.
7. Per contra the above, learned counsel for the respondents
relies on an another judgment of Supreme Court rendered in
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyug Prasaran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Anil
Kanwariya, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 136, wherein it was held as
under :-
“12. The issue/question may be considered from another
angle, from the employer’s point of view. The question is not
about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of
trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently acquitted
or not. The question is about the credibility and/or
trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of
the employment, i.e., while submitting the
declaration/verification and/or applying for a post made false
declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressing material
fact of having involved in a criminal case. If the correct facts
would have been disclosed, the employer might not have
appointed him. Then the question is of TRUST. Therefore, in
such a situation, where the employer feels that an employee
who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement
and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the
material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service
because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 10:13:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:15403] (7of 19) [CW-11588/2023]future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an
employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not to
continue such an employee always must be given to the
employer. At the cost of repetition, it is observed and as
observed hereinabove in catena of decision such an employee
cannot claim the appointment and/or continue to be in service
as a matter of right.”
8. While the observations contained hereinabove, no doubt
gives the discretion to an employer to disqualify candidate in case
of non-disclosure / suppression of the material facts but the pressing
question would be that whether it is a case of the employer having a
trust deficit arising out of the non-disclosure by a candidate?
9. In the present case, rejection of the petitioner’s candidature
does not seem to be based on trust deficit but merely a mechanical
exercise of mind by stating that since (i) he suppressed the
registration of the FIR; and (ii) registration of the FIR disqualifies
him, therefore, he was not eligible to be appointed.
10. The impugned order does not reflect that there was an
objective view taken by independent application of mind. Decision
was merely regarding petitioner’s ineligibility, and it is owing to
that he was held to be non-suitable.”
It is pertinent to note here that in Ravindra Kumar (supra),
reliance in turn is placed on a larger bench judgment of the Apex
Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.3.
12. The petitioner’s case herein is much stronger and stands on
a higher pedestal. Irrefragably, the application for compassionate
appointment was required to be submitted in the proforma
prescribed by the respondents. In his case, the proforma for
application had no column or question to bring forth information
about the candidate’s involvement in any criminal case. The
petitioner simply filled up the required information as per the
prescribed columns and submitted his application Annexure A-5.
As there was no column or question in the application proforma
seeking information qua the candidate’s involvement in any
criminal case, the petitioner cannot be blamed for non-disclosure
thereof, be it intentional or unintentional, as the case may be. This
3 (2016) 8 SCC 471
(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 10:13:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:15403] (8of 19) [CW-11588/2023]
being the situation, I see no reason why the benefit of judgment
ibid be not given to the petitioner.
13. Adverting now the main plank of defense taken by the
respondents i.e. circular dated 04.12.2019 (it is part in Hindi part
English), relevant part thereof is as under :-
“vr% ‘kklu esa lHkh Lrjksa ij ,d:irk cuk, j[kus ds fgr esa]
bl fo”k; esa iwoZ esa tkjh rRlac/kh lHkh ifji=ksa@funsZ”kksa ds vf/kØe.k
esa fuEukuqlkj fn’kkfunsZ”k tkjh fd;s tkrs gSa %&pfj= lR;kiu ds laca/k esa fofHkUu lsok fu;eksa esa izko/kku bl
izdkj gSa %&Character. The character of a candidate for direct recruitment to the
service must be such as to qualify him for employment in the service.
He must produce a certificate of good character from the
principal/Academic Officer of the University or College in which he
was last educated and two such certificates written not more than six
months prior to the date of application from two responsible persons
not connected with the College or University and not related to him.
(1) A conviction by a court of law need not of itself involve
the refusal of a certificate of good character. The
circumstances of the conviction should be taken into
account and if they involve no moral turpitude or
association with crimes of violance or with a movement
which has a its object the overthrow by violent means of
the government as established by law, the mere
conviction need not be regarded as a dis-qualification.
(2) Ex-prisoners, who by their disciplined life while in
prison and by their subsequent good conduct have prove
to be completely reformed, should not be discriminated
against on grounds of their previous conviction for the
purpose of employment in the service. Those, who are
convicted of offences not involving moral turpitude or
violance, shall be deemed to have been completely
reformed on the production of a report to that effect from
the Superintendent, After Care Home or if there are no
such Homes in a particular district, from the
superintendent of police of that district.
(3) Those convicted of offences involving moral turpitude or
violence shall be required to produce a certificate from
the superintendent, After Care Home, or if there is no
such home in particular district, from the superintendent
of police of that district, endorsed by the Inspector
General of prisons to the effect that they are suitable for
employment as they have proved to be completely
reformed by their disciplined life while in prison and by
their subsequent good conduct in an After Care Home.
(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 10:13:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:15403] (9of 19) [CW-11588/2023]
bl laca/k esa izdj.k eku- loksZPp U;k;ky; esa igqapus ij ekuuh;
U;k;ky; }kjk fnYyh iz”kklu cuke lq”khy dqekj ¼1996 ¼11½ CC 605½
esa ;g fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k gqvk gS fd Þlsok esa fu;qfDr iznku
djrs le; vH;FkhZ dk pfj= ,oa iwoZ vkpj.k egRoiw.kZ gSA vijkf/kd
izdj.k esa nks”kflf) vFkok nks”keqfDr vFkkZr okLrfod ifj.kke bruk
lqlaxr ugha gS ftruk dh vH;FkhZ dk vkpj.k o pfj=Aß
lsok fu;eksa dh vis{kk ;g gS fd ^fdlh vH;FkhZ dks fu;qfDr fn,
tkus ;k u fn, tkus ds laca/k esa fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh dks izR;sd izdj.k
ds rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,oa ftl in ij fu;qfDr nh tkuh gS ml in ds
dk;Z dh izd`fr ,oa xfjek ds vuqlkj xq.kkoxq.k ij fu.kZ; ysuk pkfg,A
iwoZ vkpj.k ds vk/kkj ij fdlh Hkh vH;FkhZ dks fu;qfDr ds ;ksX; ;k
v;ksX; ikus dk fu.kZ; djrs le; fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh dks izR;sd izdj.k
esa vijk/k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks Hkh /;ku esa j[k dj vH;FkhZ ds vkpj.k
dk vkadyu djuk pkfg,A*
mDrkuqlkj ;g fufoZokn gS fd fdlh vH;FkhZ dks fu;qfDr fn,
tkus@ugha fn, tkus dk fu.kZ; vafre :i ls fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh dks gh]
lqlaxr lsok fu;eksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq,] xq.kkoxq.k ds vk/kkj ij ysuk
gksxkA rFkkfi dqN izdj.k ,slh izd`fr ds gksaxs ftuesa Li”Vr% ;g ekuk
tk ldrk gS fd vH;FkhZ fu;qfDr gsrq ik= ugha gS tcfd vU; dqN ,sls
izdj.k Hkh gksaxs ftuesa fu;qfDr ls oafpr fd;k tkuk fdlh Hkh n`f”V ls
mfpr@U;k;iw.kZ ugha ekuk tk ldrkA vr% fu;qfDr vf/kdkfj;ksa ds
lkekU; ekxZn”kZukFkZ fun”kZu ds :i esa ,slh izd`fr ds izdj.kksa dks ;gka
ys[kc) fd;k tk jgk gS %&
1- ,sls izdj.k@fLFkfr;ka ftuesa fu;qfDr gsrq vik=rk ekuh tkuh pkfg,%&
;fn fdlh Hkh vH;FkhZ ds fo:) fuEu esa ls fdlh Hkh izdkj ds
vijk/k ds rgr izdj.k vUos{k.kk/khu@U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu ¼under
trial½ gS vFkok nks”kflf) mijkar ltk gks pqdh gS] rks mls jkT; ds
v/khu lsokvksa@inksa ij fu;qfDr gsrq ik= ugha ekuk tkuk pkfg, %&
¼i½ uSfrd v/kerk ;Fkk Ny] dwVjpuk] eRrrk] cykRlax] fdlh
efgyk dh yTtk Hkax djus ds vijk/k esa vUroZfyrrk ¼ involvement½
gksA
¼ii½ Lokid vkS”kf/k vkSj eu% izHkkoh inkFkZ voS/k O;kikj fuokj.k
vf/kfu;e] 1988 ¼1988 dk vf/kfu;e la- 26½ esa ;FkkifjHkkf”kr voS/k
O;kikj esa vUroZfyrrk gksA
¼iii½ vuSfrd O;kikj ¼fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk dsUnzh;
vf/kfu;e la- 104½ esa ;FkkifjHkkf”kr vuSfrd nqO;kZikj esa vUroZfyrrk
gksA
¼iv½ fu;ksftr fgalk ;k jkT; ds fo#) ,sls fdlh vijk/k esa
vUroZfyrrk gks] tks Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860 ¼1860 dk dsUnzh;
vf/kfu;e la- 45½ ds v/;k; 6 esa of.kZr gSA
(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 10:13:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:15403] (10of 19) [CW-11588/2023]
¼v½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds v/;k; 16 ,oa 17 esa ;Fkkof.kZr vijk/kksa
esa vUroZfyrrk gksA
¼vi½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 147] 148 ¼cyok djuk½ ds vijk/k
esa vUroZfyrrk gksA
¼vii½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 498 A ¼fL=;ksa ds izfr vkijkf/kd
nqO;Zogkj&ngst½ ds vijk/k esa vUroZfyrrk gksA
¼viii½ vtk@vttk vf/kfu;e 1989 ds rgr vijk/k esa vUroZfyrrk
gksA
¼ix½ ySafxx vijk/kksa ls ckydksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e ¼iksDlks½] 2012
ds rgr vijk/k esa vUroZfyrrk gksA
;gka ;g Hkh Li”V fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr izdkj ds vijk/kksa ls
lacaf/kr dksbZ Hkh lwpuk tkucw>dj fNikus okys vH;fFkZ;ksa dks Hkh
fu;qfDr gsrq vik= ekuk tk,xkA
2- ,sls izdj.k@fLFkfr;ka ftuesa vH;FkhZ dks fu;qfDr gsrq ik= ekuk
tkuk pkfg,%&
¼i½ ftu vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vkijkf/kd izdj.k esa vUos’k.k esa nks’kh ugha
ik;k x;k gks rFkk lacaf/kr HkrhZ esa ijh{kk ifj.kke tkjh gksus ds ,d o’kZ
ds Hkhrj vUos’k.kksijkar ,Q-vkj- U;k;ky; esa izLrqr dh tk pqdh gksA
¼ii½nks’keqfDr ds ekeyksa esa] foHkkx esa bl laca/k esa xfBr lfefr
ftlesa ,d iqfyl vf/kdkjh Hkh lnL; gksxk] vH;FkhZ ds iwoZo`r
(antecedents), vkjksikas dh xgurk ,oa nks’keqfDr dk vk/kkj] vFkkZr D;k
nks’keqfDr lEekutud :i ls iznku dh xbZ gS vFkok lansg ds
ykHk@le>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij iznku dh xbZ gS] vkfn dk leqfpr ijh{k.k
dj] vH;FkhZ dks fu;qfDr nsus ds laca/k esa fu.kZ; ysxhA
¼iii½ vH;fFkZ;ksa ds ,sls izdj.k ftuesa U;k;ky; }kjk ifjoh{kk
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12 dk ykHk fn;k tkdj ifjoh{kk ij NksMk x;k
gksA ¼nks’kflf) fdlh fujgZrk ls xzLr ugha@jktdh; lsok@Hkkoh thou
ij fdlh izdkj dk foijhr izHkko ugha½A
¼iv½ vH;fFkZ;ksa ds ,sls izdj.k ftuesa nks’kh djkj fn;k tkdj fd”kksj
U;k; ¼ckydksa dh ns[kjs[k vkSj laj{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 2005 dh /kkjk 24¼ i½
dk ykHk iznku fd;k x;k gksA
leLr fu;ksDrk vf/kdkjhx.k ls vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd os vH;fFkZ;ksa ds
pfj=@iqfyl lR;kiu ds laca/k esa fu;qfDr ds le; lacaf/kr lsok
fu;eksa ds izko/kkuksa ,oa bu fn’kk&funsZ”kksa ds izko/kkuksa dks n`f”Vxr j[krs
gq, leqfpr fu.kZ; ysaxsA rFkk mDr izd`fr ds izdj.kksa dks u rks
vuko”;d :i&ls yfEcr j[ksaxs vkSj u gh dkfeZd foHkkx dks lanfHkZr
djsaxsA”
14. It would be seen from the text of circular dated 04.12.2019
that the same is in the nature of general guidelines to be observed
(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 10:13:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:15403] (11of 19) [CW-11588/2023]
by the concerned authorities and that the ultimate decision to
adjudge the suitability or unsuitability of a candidate has to be
taken by the appointing authority by taking into consideration the
facts and circumstances of each case. Further, it has been laid
down in the circular ibid that while appointing a candidate, his
character; and previous conduct are important. The result of
criminal case – whether conviction or acquittal – are not as much
relevant as are his conduct and character. These guidelines also
show that as per the Service Rules, there is no absolute or
automatic disqualification for employment of a candidate even
after his conviction and sentencing for criminal offences (obviously
any offence, including those falling in Chapter XVI and XVII of the
Indian Penal Code now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita or an offence
involving moral turpitude) and that on satisfying certain
conditions, such candidate can also be considered for
appointment.
14.1. Circular’s emphasis on individual assessment conveys, and
rightly so, that it is not meant to serve as an inflexible rulebook
but, rather general guidelines envisaged therein are to be borne in
mind. The context Matters. Thus, the ultimate decision about a
candidate’s suitability must be made on a case-by-case basis. This
allows the appointing authority to look at the totality of a
candidate’s character and past conduct, rather than relying solely
on the outcome of a criminal proceeding.
14.2. It becomes far more relevant in cases where a candidate
might have a minor or isolated offence, and may even be a case
of strong reformation and good conduct over time, but yet he is
rejected by sheer routine mechanics. The guidelines contained in
(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 10:13:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:15403] (12of 19) [CW-11588/2023]
the circular are not to be treated so rigidly as to not even allow for
the possibility that a candidate’s past, even if marred by being a
suspect or under trial, may be outweighed by subsequent
reformation and exemplary behavior. In the present case there is
no other recorded criminal history other than the FIR in question,
which too, seems to have arisen due to some personal dispute.
More of it later.
15. Reference may at this stage be also had to 3-Judge
judgment of Apex Court rendered in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of
India & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471 decided on 21.07.2016 wherein
it was held, inter alia, that though it is open to the employer to
adjudge antecedents of the candidate, but ultimate action should
be based on objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant
aspects.
16. Being apposite, relevant part of Avatar Singh judgment is
extracted below for ready reference :-
“30. The employer is given “discretion” to terminate or otherwise
to condone the omission. Even otherwise, once employer has the
power to take a decision when at the time of filling verification form
declarant has already been convicted/acquitted, in such a case, it
becomes obvious that all the facts and attending circumstances,
including impact of suppression or false information are taken into
consideration while adjudging suitability of an incumbent for
services in question. In case the employer comes to the conclusion
that suppression is immaterial and even if facts would have been
disclosed it would not have adversely affected fitness of an
incumbent, for reasons to be recorded, it has power to condone the
lapse. However, while doing so employer has to act prudently on
due consideration of nature of post and duties to be rendered. For
higher officials/higher posts, standard has to be very high and even
slightest false information or suppression may by itself render a
person unsuitable for the post. However, same standard cannot be
applied to each and every post. In concluded criminal cases, it has
to be seen what has been suppressed is material fact and would
have rendered an incumbent unfit for appointment. An employer
would be justified in not appointing or if appointed, to terminate
services of such incumbent on due consideration of various aspects.
Even if disclosure has been made truthfully, the employer has the
right to consider fitness and while doing so effect of conviction and(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 10:13:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:15403] (13of 19) [CW-11588/2023]background facts of case, nature of offence, etc. have to be
considered. Even if acquittal has been made, employer may
consider nature of offence, whether acquittal is honourable or
giving benefit of doubt on technical reasons and decline to appoint
a person who is unfit or of dubious character. In case employer
comes to conclusion that conviction or ground of acquittal in
criminal case would not affect the fitness for employment,
incumbent may be appointed or continued in service.
xxx xxx xx
34. No doubt about it that verification of character and
antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess suitability and
it is open to employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but
ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria on due
consideration of all relevant aspects.
35. Suppression of “material” information presupposes that what
is suppressed that “matters” not every technical or trivial matter.
The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions,
if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for
terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has
suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right
for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be
dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable
manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases.
36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature
of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all
services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are
not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability
has to be considered by authorities concerned considering
post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due
consideration of various aspects.
37. The “McCarthyism” is antithesis to constitutional goal,
chance of reformation has to be afforded to young offenders in
suitable cases, interplay of reformative theory cannot be ruled out
in toto nor can be generally applied but is one of the factors to be
taken into consideration while exercising the power for cancelling
candidature or discharging an employee from service.
38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and
reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:
38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to
conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case,
whether before or after entering into service must be true and there
should be no suppression or false mention of required information.
38.2. While passing order of termination of services or
cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the
employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if
any, while giving such information.
(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 10:13:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:15403] (14of 19) [CW-11588/2023]
38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government
orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of
taking the decision.
38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of
involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had
already been recorded before filling of the application/verification
form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the
following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted:
38.4.1.In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been
recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty
offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent
unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore
such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the
lapse.
38.4.2.Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not
trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate
services of the employee.
38.4.3.If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving
moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical
ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of
reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all
relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate
decision as to the continuance of the employee.
38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully
of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to
consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the
candidate.
38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character
verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial
nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its
discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such
case.
38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to
multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume
significance and an employer may pass appropriate order
cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a
person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not
be proper.
38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate
at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and
the appointing authority would take decision after considering the
seriousness of the crime.
38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding
departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of
termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or
submitting false information in verification form.
(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 10:13:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:15403] (15of 19) [CW-11588/2023]
38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/
verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such
information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to
be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to
knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an
objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However,
in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or
submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked
for.
38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio
falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.”
17. In the light of aforesaid, at the cost of repetition, it may be
noted that circular dated 04.12.2019 (Annexure R-1) itself states
that the same is in the nature of general guidelines and that the
ultimate decision-whether or not to appoint a candidate – is to be
taken by the appointing authority in each case on its own merits,
taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances, the
nature of work and status of the post and; that in each case, while
deciding on the suitability or unsuitability of a candidate, the
appointing authority should assess candidate’s character by taking
into consideration the facts and circumstances of the offence.
18. As already observed, in present case, there is absolutely no
plea or material placed on record to show that the appointing
authority after due and objective consideration and application of
mind to the facts and circumstances of the case had taken any
conscious decision on it’s merits for refusal to appoint the
petitioner. Vide impugned letter dated 19.09.2022, the Vikas
Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar,
simply informed the petitioner that in terms of circular letter dated
04.12.2019 issued by the Personnel Department, he was found
ineligible for appointment to the post of Village Development
Officer (‘VDO’) on compassionate grounds due to a pending
(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 10:13:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:15403] (16of 19) [CW-11588/2023]
criminal case against him and; that his claim will be considered
after conclusion of the court case. This action of respondent No. 3,
in my opinion, cannot be said to be more than just a mechanical
approach by the respondents, totally bereft of application of mind
to the facts and circumstances of the case by the concerned
appointing authority.
19. Reverting to the alleged offences attributed to the petitioner
originating from dispute with complainant Jasvinder Singh, some
facts may now be noted about the criminal case i.e. the FIR
No.92/2016 (Annexure-A-7) under Sections 341/323//143/382
IPC which was lodged at Police Station, Gajsinghpur by one
Jasvinder Singh aged 20 years against the petitioner, 22 years old
then. It’s relevant part reads thus:-
“Fkkuk tlfoUnzflag fnukad 29-6-16 LFkku lh,plh th,pihvkj le;
8,,e Jh tlfoUnzflag iq= lq[kfoUnzflag mez 20 o”kZ tkfr xfB;k
fuoklh 2 ,Q,Q, jgus okyk gwa vkt lqcg 5-30 ,,e ij esjs ?kj
dqythrflag iq= jktsUnzflag tkfr tVfl[k fuoklh 2,Q,Q, ftlus
eq>s vkokt yxkdj cqykdj dgk fd jsl yxkus pyrs gSa nksuksa ds lkFk
?kj ls lkFk ?kj ls py dj 2 ,Q,Q, ls 3 ,Q,Q, rjQ dh jksM
ij nkSM+ yxkus vk x;s tc ge vkRekflag ds ckx ds ikl igqaps rks
ckx esa ls pkj yksx vkSj vk;s ftuesa ls ,d yM+dk dqythrflag eklh
dk yM+dk Fkk vkSj vU; rhu dks eSa ugha tkurk ftUgksaus ikapksa us ,d
jk; gksdj esjs lkFk dqN fcuk crk;s ykBh o ljh;k ls vpkud esjs
lkFk ekjihV dh ftlls eq>s dqythrflag us esjs flj ij lkeus pksV
ekjh og mldh eklh ds yM+ds us ykBh ls da/ks ij ihNs ihV ij pksV
ekjh ftlls esjs flj esa nks txg [kwu vk jgk gS vU; rhuksa us esjs iSj
M.Mksa ls pksV o ihB ij ihNs dkQh ekjh pksVas ekjh ftlls eq>s ihM+k o
nnZ tkfgj gks jgk gS mlds ckn ikapksa ogha ij iM+k NksM+dj pys x,
mlds ckn iou tksrflag vk;k ftlus eq>s mBkdj esjs ?kj rd NksM+k
rFkk et:c dk ekSds ls eksckby Nhudj ys vk;s ,lMh tlfoUnz flag]
,lMh lqHkk”k pUn dsEi lh,plh xtflagiqj ih,l xtflagiqj vkt
fnukad 29-6-16 ds oDr 8 ,,e ij mijksDr et:c tlfoUnz flag iq=
lq[kftUnzflag tkfr jkexfB;k mez 20 lky fuoklh 2,Q,Q, Fkkuk
xtflagiqj ds cksys vuqlkj ipkZ c;ku rgjhj fd;s x;s etewu ipkZ
c;ku ls tqeZ /kkjk 341] 323] 143] 382 vkbZihlh dk ?kfVr gksuk ik;k
x;k gS et:c dks ipkZ c;ku iqu% i<+dj lquk;s lqu le> lgh eku
vius gLrk{kj djrk gS vkbZUnk Fkkuk igqap vfHk;ksx iathc) fd;k
tkosxkA ,lMh tlfoUnzflag] ,lMh lqHkk”k pUnz ,plh ih,l xtflagiqj
dsEi lh,plh xtflagiqj ih,l xtflagiqj vkt fnukad 29-6-16 ds
(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 10:13:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:15403] (17of 19) [CW-11588/2023]oDr 10 ,,e ij Jh lqHkk”k pUnz ,plh 133 cgokys jokuxh jiV
la[;k 1104rk gktk dk x;k gqvk okil vk;k ipkZ c;ku et:c
tlfoUnz flag ij vfHk;ksx la[;k 92@16 /kkjk 341] 323] 143] 382
vkbZihlh ih,l xtflagiqj esa ntZ dj vuqla/kku dj Jh lqHkk”k
pUnz ,plh 133 dks lqiqnZ fd;k x;kA ,QvkbZvkj izfr;ka fuEukuqlkj
tkjh dh xbA”
20. It would be seen that there is nothing in the FIR to show that
when at about 05:30 AM, Kuljeet Singh i.e. the petitioner herein
came to the complainant’s house and called him out to join him
for a race, the petitioner was armed with any weapon like baton,
lathi or saria. Further, though the FIR says that the petitioner
gave him blow on his head, but it is silent with what specific
weapon Kuljeet Singh gave that blow. To be noted also, that the
FIR does not speak of any previous grudge, ill will or enmity of the
petitioner against the complainant or any circumstances to show
that the petitioner shared the common intention of the other
assailants for the commission of the offences.
21. Be that as it may, considering these facts and points, I am
of the opinion that it cannot be said that the nature of the
offences ascribed to the petitioner and the attending
circumstances are such as would impinge upon the
duties/functions and dignity of the post for which he is aspiring.
22. The respondents have no doubt also informed the petitioner
through the impugned letter that his claim will be considered
after conclusion of the Court case. In my opinion, this does not
justify refusal of the relief due to the petitioner in the lis at this
stage itself. The object of the scheme for Compassionate
appointment is that following death of an employee in harness,
immediate succor be provided to his family to tide over the
sudden financial crisis. Conclusion of the criminal case, which
(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 10:13:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:15403] (18of 19) [CW-11588/2023]
may be even go up to the Supreme Court, would take quite long
time. It would be unjust and unfair to keep the petitioner waiting
in uncertainty till then. Besides, with passage of time,
circumstances may change and entail more hurdles against the
petitioner including age bar and ability of the distressed family to
sustain till then, thus diluting, diminishing and even defeating the
petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment. The relief may
also become meaningless for the petitioner owing to sheer delay.
23. As an upshot of the above discussion, I am of the opinion
that action of the respondents is not only in violation of the
aforesaid law laid down in Avtar Singh (supra) by a 3-Judge Bench
of the Supreme Court but also shows utter non-adherence to their
own administrative policy instructions and the failure to show
application of mind to the facts and circumstances of case by the
appointing authority. To my mind, it also infringes upon the
petitioner’s fundamental rights under the Constitution to be
considered for public employment. The respondents’ action
cannot, therefore, be sustained in law.
24. Resultantly, the petition is allowed; the impugned letter
dated 19.09.2022 (Annexure-9) issued by respondent No. 3 is
quashed; the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s
claim and if he is found otherwise eligible for the post applied for,
they shall issue the order for his compassionate appointment on
the post of Village Development Officer subject to it’s review in
the light of outcome of the pending trial against him and upon the
petitioner’s furnishing an undertaking that in case he is convicted
in the pending criminal trial, he shall not claim any equity on the
basis of the instant order. The needful shall be done within a
(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 10:13:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:15403] (19of 19) [CW-11588/2023]
period of two months from the date the petitioner approaches the
appointing authority with a web print of the instant order
alongwith an undertaking as above.
25. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
113-AK Chouhan/-
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No
(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 10:13:50 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)