TITLE: RAVINDRA KUMAR V. STATE OF U.P. & ORS
CITATION: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5902 OF 2012
DECIDED ON: 22 FEBRUARY 2024.
CORAM: JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI AND JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Justice K.V. Viswanathan states that “our opinion on the peculiar facts of the case, we do not think it can be deemed fatal for the appellant. Broad-brushing every non-disclosure as a disqualification will be unjust and the same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the ground realities obtaining in this great, vast and diverse country. Each case will depend on the facts and circumstances that prevail thereon, and the court will have to take a holistic view, based on objective criteria, with the available precedents serving as a guide. It can never be a one size fits all scenarios.”
Brief Facts:
Ravindra Kumar had applied for the position of Constable, and during the course of his application, became involved in a criminal case. Subsequently, he was acquitted of the charges. However, the central issue arose from his non-disclosure of this criminal case in the verification form. As a result, his employment was cancelled by the authorities. The case presented the question of whether the non-disclosure warranted the cancellation of his employment.
Court’s Observation and Analysis:
The Supreme Court of India conducted a thorough analysis of the case, emphasizing the need for an individualized assessment in such matters. The court highlighted the importance of considering specific factors, including the nature of the office, timing and nature of the criminal case, and the overall character of the candidate. Drawing from precedent, the court cautioned against adopting a one-size-fits-all approach, arguing that non-disclosure should not automatically lead to disqualification. The judgment underscored the significance of a nuanced examination of circumstances.
The court delved into legal principles, placing particular emphasis on the employer’s exercise of power in a reasonable manner and the necessity of a fair and reasonable decision-making procedure. The judgment explored the concept of suppression of material information and stressed the need for a holistic view based on objective criteria. Special circumstances were deemed crucial, with the court urging a comprehensive consideration of all relevant aspects.
Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside previous orders and directing the authorities to appoint Ravindra Kumar in the Constable position. The judgment specified entitlement to notional benefits but excluded arrears of salary for the period of non-service. This decision highlighted the court’s commitment to fairness, reasonableness, and a contextualized evaluation of each case, steering away from a rigid application of rules in assessing the impact of non-disclosure on employment.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Komal Goswami
