Karnataka Police Recruitment| Failure To Disclose Criminal Case That Is Not Trivial And Involves Moral Turpitude Even Though Acquitted Is Fatal: High Court
The Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi Bench, held that if a criminal case is pending against an individual applying for a post in the police department, non-disclosure of such pendency, even though the candidate was subsequently acquitted in that case, is a valid ground for rejection of the application.
The Court dismissed a Writ Petition challenging the Order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal). The Court emphasized that even though the Petitioner was acquitted of the said offences, on the date of the application, a criminal case was pending against him which was not disclosed in his application.
The Bench comprising Justice Mohammad Nawaz and Justice Rajesh Rai K observed, “The criminal case in which the petitioner was involved relates to offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 324, 307 and 504 of IPC and hence it cannot be said that, the said prosecution relates to a trivial conduct or it does not involve moral turpitude. Even though the petitioner has been acquitted of the said offences, as on the date of filing of the application, the criminal case was pending against him and the same was not disclosed in the application, which was required to be stated”.
Advocate Mahesh Patil appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Veeranagouda Malipatil appeared for the Respondents.
The Respondents had issued an order for filing up the post of cadre. The Petitioner submitted his application but contended that he had scored 71 out of 100 marks but was selected in the provisional list. Thereafter his name was deleted because of his involvement in a criminal case. He approached the tribunal but his application was dismissed. The Petitioner approached the Court by way of a Writ Petition challenging the order of the Tribunal.
The Court noted that the Petitioner was involved in a criminal case for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 324, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Hence, the Court held that even though the Petitioner was acquitted of the said offences, on the date of the application, a criminal case was pending against him which was not disclosed in his application.
Therefore, the Court held that there was no need for interference in the impugned order. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Narayan Jamadar v Karnataka State Police Department (2023:KHC-K:7889-DB)
