Union of India v. Ashok Kumar

1. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed. W.P.(C) 3544/2008

2. In this petition, the Union of India (UOI) is aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which had allowed the respondent/applicant's plea for acceptance of his application and further appointment to the post of Constable in the Delhi Police.

3. The petitioner had contended that the respondent/applicant had withheld or suppressed material particulars with respect to his involvement in aprevious criminal proceeding. The CAT took note of the relevant facts and was ofthe opinion that even though the Page I of[3] 2019:DHC:7785-DB applicant did not disclose that he was charged along with others for criminal offence and that he was acquitted of charges, that did not reflect adversely on his conduct such as to deny his claim for appointment. In doing so, the CAT relied upon certain decisions of the Supreme Court.

4. At the outset, this Court notices that the issue involved, i.e. disclosure of material facts with respect to the involvement of an applicant to apost ofpublic employment has been the subject matter ofdivergence ofopinions in the judgment ofthe Supreme Court. The,issue was referred for resolution to athree-Judge Bench; eventually, in the judgment reported as Avtar Singh v. Union ofIndia and Ors. 2016 (8) see 471, a three Judge Bench indicated the correct approach which public employers had to adopt. The relevant extract ofthejudgment is reproduced for facility ofreference.:

38. We have noticed various decisions andtried to explain and reconcile them asfar as possible. In view ofthe aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx

38.11 Before aperson is held guilty ofsuppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.

39. We answer the reference accordingly. Let the matters be placed before an appropriate Bench for consideration on merits. " Page 2 of[3]

5. In view of the above development, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner's grievance is to be addressed in the light of the judgment in Avtar Singh (supra). Accordingly, the matter is remitted for reconsideration, by the concerned agency, i.e. Delhi Police; The competent authority shall consider the facts of the respondent/applicant's case, having regard to all the particulars provided and which are on record as well as the details of the parties and the judgment acquitting him, and consider his claim for appointment at the earliest and in any case not later than six weeks. The competent authority shall pass a speaking order which shall be directly communicated to the respondent/applicant. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J iTEEK JALAN,