Person with criminal antecedents not fit to work at BARC which does sensitive work: Bombay High Court

The Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) an institution which undertakes sensitive work and a person with criminal antecedents cannot be allowed to work in such a sensitive institution, the Bombay High Court recently ruled [Swapnil Prakash Parab vs State of Maharashtra].The Court, therefore, dismissed a petition filed by a man challenging rejection of his job application at BARC since he had failed to disclose a criminal case pending against him. A division bench of Justices Sanjay Gangapurwala and R N Laddha said that honesty and integrity are one of the main requirements for a government job. "The BARC is the nation’s premier research centre and is engaged in advanced research and development activities in nuclear science. A candidate interested in joining such a sensitive institution is expected to have a flawless character and integrity without blemishes. An individual with criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. He should be reliable and trustworthy. He was expected to state all the required information honestly. Honesty and integrity are the inherent requirements in public employment," the Court said in its order. .The bench was hearing a plea filed by one Swapnil Parab, who had applied for the post of Hospital Work Assistant at BARC in 2016. However, while filling the form he didn't disclose the details of a criminal case pending against him since 2012. The petitioner had been booked under charges of causing voluntary hurt and disturbing public order. While scrutinising his form, the authorities at the BARC learnt of the pending criminal case against him and, therefore, issued a show cause notice to him in October 2016. Subsequently, his application was rejected. .The Court noted that despite being aware of the pending case, the petitioner didn't disclose the same to the concerned authorities. He contended that after filing the job application, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. The bench, however, turned down the same. "It was only when the concerned authorities discovered that there was suppression of material facts by the Petitioner, he informed them. His only defence was that he had not committed any offence and had subsequently been acquitted of all charges. His perception of not having committed an offence could not be enough," the Court opined. .It further stated all that the petitioner had to do was to leave it to the employer to determine the effect of the pendency of a criminal case on his upcoming job."His subsequent acquittal on its own would not be enough to erase the suppression of essential facts. Besides, looking at the sensitive nature of activities undertaken at BARC, we cannot say that the employer’s decision to reject his representation was unreasonable or arbitrary. The decision on the suitability of the Petitioner, in our view, was entirely correct and did not call for any interference," the Court concluded. .Advocates Amit Dubey and Ashok Saraogi represented the Petitioner.Additional Government Pleader MA Sayed and advocates Neel Helekar and PJ Khosla represented the State and BARC respectively. .[Read Order]