"How can he be trusted?" Supreme Court rejects candidature for post of police constable for suppressing criminal antecedents

The Supreme Court recently confirmed the rejection of the candidature of a person for the post of police constable after he was found to have suppressed material facts about pendency of the criminal cases against him [State of Rajasthan and Others v. Chetan Jeff]..A Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna was hearing an appeal assailing a decision of the Rajasthan High Court which had directed the State of Rajasthan to consider the candidature of the respondent for the appointment to the post of police constable.The High Court had noted that since the respondent was charged with the offences which were trivial in nature, therefore, the suppression of such offences can be ignored and the appellant's candidature can be considered..Before the top Court, the State argued that when the candidate at the initial stage itself did not state the true and correct facts and as such suppressed the material facts, he is not entitled to be appointed..The Supreme Court noted that a person applying for the post of uniformed service is expected to be honest, trustworthy and reliable. However, the Court was of the view that the respondent failed to match these expectations by suppressing material facts of criminal antecedents against him."An 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 present case the original writ petitioner has not confirmed to the above expectations/ requirements. He suppressed the material facts of his criminal antecedents," the Court observed.The Court criticised the approach taken by the High Court stating that the issue was not whether the facts suppressed were trivial or not. "The question is not whether the offences were trivial in nature or not. 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," the apex court held. .The top court, therefore, took the view that the authority did not commit any error in rejecting the candidature of the respondent for the post of constable in the instant case.It thus allowed the State's appeal and set aside the decision of the High Court. .Senior Advocate Manish Singhvi argued for the appellant-State. Advocate RK Shukla argued for the respondent..[Read Judgment]