Allowed

Sri Nagendra K S v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2022WP/11238/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Tribunal's rejection of a police constable candidate due to alleged non-disclosure of a criminal case. The Court found the candidate unaware of the case until summons were issued and set aside the impugned orders, directing the State to reconsider the application.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders of the Tribunal and the Appointing Authority were set aside. A direction was issued to the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's application and complete the appointment proce

Sri Nagendra K S Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.11238/2022 (S-KSAT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI NAGENDRA K S S/O SHIVA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O KOTIKERE VILLAGE AND POST BEGUR HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT- 571111.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI RAVI H K, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPT. ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT

¶13

VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGLAURU -560001.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KARNATAKA STATE, BENGALURU NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU- 560 001.

¶15

THE CHAIRMAN RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE AND THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

¶16

¶17

MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU -570 001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. SHILPA S GOGI, HCGP)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16/03/2022 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.2050/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THIS WRIT PETITION OF THE PETITIONER BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.2050/2022 FILED BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY G.NARENDAR ., J MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶24

The matter was listed on earlier dates and the

¶25

petitioner was directed to furnish list of dates and events relating to the registration of criminal case and

¶26

his filing of the application for appointment in the services of respondent-State. The same was put across to the learned HCGP and the learned HCGP was called upon to verify the authenticity of the dates and events that have transpired. The above procedure was

¶27

¶28

adopted by this Court, in view of the fact that the selection of the petitioner, though qualified, was rejected on the short ground that he has not disclosed pendency of the criminal case.

¶29

The facts in brief are as under:

¶30

That, by advertisement dated 17.05.2018, the respondents-State invited applications for the post of Civil Police Constable (Men and Women). In response to the same, the petitioner submitted his application on 29.06.2018, Application No.4531146 seeking for appointment to the post of the Civil Police Constable. That, on 11.11.2019, the petitioner was successful in the written test conducted for appointment to the post of Civil Police Constable and his name was found in the final select list. But by endorsement dated 19.03.2020, his application was rejected and his selection was nullified on the short ground that particulars of the pendency of criminal case was not disclosed by him.

¶31

Aggrieved by the said rejection of his candidature, the petitioner approached the Karnataka State

¶32

¶33

Administrative Tribunal (for short “The Tribunal”), in Application No.2050/2020. The Tribunal, by its order dated 16.03.2022 was pleased to reject the petitioner’s application. In the interregnum, the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupet, by order dated 19.01.2022 passed in C.C.No.33/2019 was pleased to acquit the petitioner of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341 read with Section 149 of IPC. Despite the relief granted and order of acquittal, the Tribunal was pleased to reject the case canvassed by the petitioner. While doing so, the Tribunal has pleased reliance on the Ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2008 SC 878 in the case of

¶34

R.RADHAKRISHNAN v/s DIRECTOR GENERAL OF

¶35

POLICE AND OTHERS wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that any candidate who furnishes wrong information is unsuitable for appointment and mere fact of having furnished wrong or incorrect or false information would be ground enough to reject his candidature. The Tribunal in paragraph 7 has been pleased to elaborate on the importance of antecedents

¶36

¶37

and characters of the candidates who have applied for appointment in the Police Department and also proceeded to accept the finding of the Appointing Authority, that the petitioner has suppressed the material information and thus disentitling him for consideration for appointment. On these grounds, the Tribunal was pleased to reject the application of the petitioner.

¶38

We have perused the material on record and the impugned order of the Tribunal. We have also perused the list of dates and events, copy of the order sheet in C.C.No.33/2019 and copy of the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 436 of Cr.P.C., which have been produced along with the memo dated 16.08.2022. The authenticity and veracity of these documents are not disputed by the learned HCGP. It is vehemently contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the finding of the Appointing Authority that the petitioner has suppressed material information is without basis and in fact contrary to the material on

¶39

¶40

record both before this Court and before the Trial Court and the authorities.

¶41

He would contend that an FIR came to be lodged on 20.03.2018 for the offenses punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341 read with Section 149 of IPC. He would submit that name of the petitioner was not disclosed in the FIR, as such, on the date, the complaint was lodged in effect, there was no complaint against the petitioner, which position is indisputable. The fact remains that FIR does not disclose the name of the petitioner on the date of registration of FIR, that is 20.03.2018. It is also not in dispute that invitation for application by respondent-State for the post of Civil Police Constable was made on 17.05.2018. It is also indisputable that the application was made by the petitioner on 29.06.2018 and even on the said date, there is no other material which would demonstrate that the petitioner was arrayed in any criminal proceedings. It further turns out that the name of the petitioner came to be inserted in the final report which

¶42

¶43

was prepared on 29.08.2020. It is also not in dispute

¶44

that the charge sheet was filed into Court on 01.01.2019. It is also indisputable that summons were ordered by the Trial Court on 06.04.2019 and on the summons being served on the petitioner, the petitioner appeared before the Trial Court on 26.06.2019. It is also not in dispute that an application under Section 436 of Cr.P.C. filed before the Court on the same day and the Court was pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail by its order of even date. Thus, the indisputable facts are that, as on the date of registration of the FIR, the name of the petitioner was not included in the array of accused persons. Even on the date of advertisement inviting applications and on the date on which the petitioner made his application i.e., 17.05.2018 and 29.06.2018, the petitioner was not named as an accused. Only on 29.08.2018, the name of the petitioner is included in the final report as an accused. It is also relevant to note that the charge sheet came to be filed into Court only on 01.01.2019 i.e., after lapse of nearly four months and summons were served and he

¶45

¶46

has made his appearance before the Court pursuant to the summons only on 26.06.2019. Thus, knowledge of the registration of the criminal case can be imputed to the petitioner, effectively after 26.06.2019 only.

¶47

It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was put on notice by the Police or that the Police had made any attempts to secure the presence of the petitioner or that the Police have made attempts to arrest or detain the petitioner or even investigate and interrogate him. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the Tribunal has gravely erred in accepting the version of the Appointing Authority, that there has been deliberate suppression of fact or rather peddling of misinformation.

¶48

The above discussion and narration clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was not aware of registration of the FIR nor is any material placed either before the Tribunal or this Court to demonstrate the fact that either the registration of FIR was made known to the petitioner or that the Investigating Police had

¶49

¶50

made any attempt to secure the presence of the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner was not intimated stands further amplified by the fact of summons issued by the trial Court pursuant to which alone the petitioner has put in appearance and sought to be enlarge on bail.

¶51

In the light of the undisputed facts, we are of the considered opinion that the finding of the Appointing Authority is wholly unsustainable. There has been no effort made by the petitioner either to furnish misinformation or mislead or provide any erroneous information, with regard to pendency of the cases. Neither registration of FIR nor final report were within the knowledge of the petitioner. The facts clearly demonstrate that the petitioner became aware of the pendency of the criminal case only on receipt of summons, that is, after 26.06.2019.

¶52

In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the Tribunal dated 16.03.2022 rendered in Application No.2050/2020 and

¶53

10 -

¶54

order of the Appointing Authority dated 19.03.2020 bearing Proceedings No.¹§âA¢-1/16/2018-19(¨sÁUÀ-2) are

¶55

wholly unsustainable and warrant interference at the hands of this Court. The orders impugned are accordingly set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.

¶56

There shall be a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to reconsider the petitioner’s application for appointment to the post of Civil Police Constable from the stage of verification of testimonials and complete the process of appointment of the petitioner, if he is otherwise eligible, within an outer limit of eight weeks.

¶57

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

mpk/-* CT:bms

Sri Nagendra K S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nagendra K S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mithun M S Vs Smt Bhavana G

M/S Sorting Hat Technologies Private Limited Vs Vishal Vivek Tiwari

LIC of India Vs Kum Ponnaganti Sumedha Reddy

Srinivasa T Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Rajeshwara C Vs the Chief Secretary

Hanumantarayappa a(Late) Vs Sri Gopala Krishna