BENCH: Justice DK Singh
FACTS:
The petitioner was appointed as a Driver Mechanical Transport (DVRMT) OG in the General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF) on February 17, 2022, under the OBC category for the 2019 vacancy. He was later posted at RCC (GREF) Records on June 29, 2022. Before his appointment, the petitioner was accused in Crime No. 210/2015 at Sakthikulangara Police Station, Kollam, for offenses under Sections 452, 294, 325, and 324 of IPC. However, the Kerala High Court quashed the final report and proceedings in the case on July 7, 2022.
During police verification after his appointment, it was revealed that he was previously involved in Crime No. 92/2011 for blocking road traffic during a temple festival. This case was closed upon payment of a fine. On September 7, 2022, the Commanding Officer issued a show cause notice, stating that the petitioner had suppressed material information regarding his criminal record. Subsequently, a termination notice (Ext. P7) was issued, and his services were terminated on October 4, 2022 (Ext. P8).
The petitioner’s wife later requested revocation of termination on January 16, 2023, but the authorities replied that the petitioner had submitted a resignation on August 2, 2022, citing personal reasons. The petitioner disputes this claim, stating he never resigned and that the resignation letter was not in his handwriting. The petitioner has now approached the Kerala High Court, seeking to quash the termination order and relieving letter (Exts. P7 & P8).
ISSUES:
The main issue in the case was whether the involvement of the petitioner in previous case made him ineligible for the post of GREF.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The impugned termination orders (Exts. P7 & P8) are set aside, and the matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration. The 2nd respondent shall determine afresh whether the petitioner is unsuitable for the post of Driver Mechanical Transport due to the non-disclosure of two criminal cases, which were quashed and compounded. The decision must be made in accordance with the law and within one month, after granting the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing. The writ petition is allowed without costs.
The court emphasized that non-disclosure of past criminal cases should not automatically disqualify a candidate from government service. Citing Ramkumar v. State of U.P. (2011) and Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. (2024), the court reiterated that appointing authorities must assess suitability on a case-by-case basis rather than rigidly treating every omission as a ground for termination. The Supreme Court has held that a holistic approach should be adopted, considering the nature and circumstances of the offenses rather than applying a blanket disqualification for non-disclosure.
In the present case, the petitioner’s involvement in two minor offenses—one quashed by the High Court and the other compounded upon payment of a fine—did not indicate moral turpitude or serious criminal intent. These incidents occurred when the petitioner was a student, and no finding was recorded that the offenses were of a grave nature. The court found that the competent authority failed to consider these aspects before terminating the petitioner’s employment, making the decision legally unsustainable.
ANALYSIS:
The court’s ruling underscores the principle of proportionality in employment-related legal disputes, particularly in cases involving past criminal records. By setting aside the termination orders and remanding the matter for reconsideration, the court reinforced the idea that non-disclosure of past offenses should not automatically lead to disqualification. The judgment aligns with established precedents that emphasize a case-specific approach rather than a rigid, blanket policy of disqualification. The reference to Ramkumar v. State of U.P. (2011) and Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. (2024) highlights the judiciary’s evolving stance on the employment rights of individuals with past legal issues. The decision ensures that an individual is not unfairly penalized for trivial or non-serious offenses, especially when they occurred in youth and have since been legally resolved.
Additionally, the court’s decision highlights the failure of the appointing authority to assess the nature and impact of the offenses objectively. The petitioner’s involvement in the cases—one quashed by the Kerala High Court and the other compounded upon payment of a fine—did not establish moral turpitude or serious criminal conduct. The court’s reasoning stresses the importance of considering mitigating factors, such as the petitioner’s age at the time of the offenses and the lack of a serious criminal record, rather than relying solely on procedural technicalities like non-disclosure. By remanding the case for a fresh decision, the court provided an opportunity for a fair and balanced reassessment, ensuring that termination from government service is not imposed disproportionately without due consideration of relevant facts.
info@adhwaitha.com
