Non-Disclosure Of Minor Cases Would Not Itself Make A Candidate Unsuitable For A Post: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court set aside the termination Order remitting the matter back to the competent authority to consider the suitability of the candidate.
The Kerala High Court has held that non-disclosure of minor cases would not itself make a candidate unsuitable for a post he has applied for.
The Court allowed the Writ Petition challenging the termination of employment of the Petitioner who was at the post of ‘Driver Mechanical Transport (DVRMT) OG’ in the General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF). The Court set aside the termination Orders and directed the competent authority to reconsider the matter afresh.
A Single Bench of Justice DK Singh observed, “I am of the view that the non-disclosure of two criminal cases against the petitioner, which were quashed and compounded, would not be fatal to the petitioner’s suitability to the post inasmuch as the cases are not serious in character and do not involve the petitioner's moral turpitude.”
Advocate C Rajendran represented the Petitioner, while Central Government Counsel Dayasindhu Shreehari appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner was appointed in GREF under the OBC category for the vacancy. Before his appointment, he was accused of offences under Sections 452, 294, 325, and 324 of the IPC. The High Court has subsequently quashed the final report and further proceedings.
During police verification, it was found that the Petitioner was also involved in another case, under Sections 143, 147, 188, and 283 of the IPC. The FIR alleged that the Petitioner had caused a road blockage during a temple festival. The case was later compounded upon payment of a fine.
Termination Proceedings
The Commanding Officer issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, alleging suppression of material facts regarding criminal cases. The Petitioner was subsequently served with a termination notice.
The Petitioner argued that his involvement in the cases was minor, one of which was quashed by the High Court and the other compounded by fine payment. He contended that non-disclosure of these cases did not warrant termination and that his appointment was not obtained through any concealment.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court noted that the Petitioner was involved in the offences when he was young and involved in the activities of the student union. “Every non-disclosure cannot be treated to be fatal to the appointment to the post of Driver in the respondent,” it held.
“Non-disclosure of two minor cases, which were later on quashed and closed, one by the High Court and another by paying the fine, would not itself make the petitioner unsuitable for the post of Driver. It must be noted that the authority did not consider the fact that the alleged offences were committed by the petitioner when he was a student, and the nature of the offences were not serious but trivial in nature,” the Court explained.
The Bench referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union Of India (2016) wherein it was held that “by considering the young age of the petitioner in that case as also that he was involved in a minor offence, held that the young people often commit indiscretions and such indiscretions can often be condoned.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Harilal S v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:7092)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates C. Rajendran, B. Gopalakrishnan, R.S. Sreevidya and Manu M.
Respondents: Advocate K.S. Prenjith Kumar; Central Government Counsel Dayasindhu Shreehari
