Suppression of pending criminal cases as a ground for denial of employment irrespective of the seriousness of the charges: Rajasthan High Court

The bank of Judge Vinit Kumar Mathur ruled that the seriousness of the offence of which the plaintiff was accused was not relevant, but the suppression of the material facts was itself a reason to refuse employment. It was considered that the conduct and character of the employee were more relevant and important, since the post in question was that of a primary school teacher.

“If a person is entrusted with the pious duty of imparting education and sanskar to young children, then the most important and relevant criteria for selecting that person should be trustworthiness and impeccable integrity.”

The applicant had passed the relevant examination for the post and was summoned for a document check. It emerged that criminal proceedings were pending against him. For this reason, he was not assigned the post and the applicant filed a complaint with the court.

The State Government's counsel argued that this was a clear case of concealment and misrepresentation. The complainant denied that there was any criminal case pending against him by marking a 'cross' in front of the relevant question in the certification form and made a declaration to this effect in the self-declaration which he had signed. The counsel argued that appointing such a person to the post of a primary school teacher would ruin and spoil the future of the young generation.

The court agreed with the arguments of the state government’s lawyer and referred to the Supreme Court case Rajasthan Rajya Vidyug Prasaran Nigam Ltd. To/s Anil Kanwariya, which dealt with a similar matter and found

“Then there is the question of TRUST. In such a situation where the employer considers that an employee who has made a false statement at the early stage and/or has not disclosed the material facts and/or has concealed the material facts cannot be continued to be employed because he will not be reliable in the future either, the employer cannot be compelled to continue to employ such an employee. The choice/option whether or not to continue to employ such an employee must always be left to the employer.”

In line with the judgment, the Court also found that the relevant issue was not the charges in the pending criminal proceedings against the applicant, but the fact that he had suppressed the job search information, which in itself was a reason to deny him employment.

The court considered that the prospects of employment as a teacher would be hopeless if the candidate's qualifications were based on untruths, fraud and misrepresentation.

Therefore, the Court held that the applicant did not deserve leniency in this respect, even if he demonstrated merit. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed.

Title: Satyanarayan Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 261