Conviction for ‘Petty Offence’ Not Enough: Karnataka High Court Reinstates Peon After Sessions Court Cancelled Appointment Over Gaming Charge
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi held that conviction for a petty offence under Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, is not a valid ground to cancel the offer of appointment to a post such as that of a peon. The court directed that the respondent be reinstated, affirming the earlier order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench concluded that there was no material evidence to support the argument that the respondent's appointment had been terminated due to non-disclosure of his conviction, and that such a minor offence did not involve moral turpitude to justify cancellation of employment.
The appeal arose from a decision rendered by a learned Single Judge allowing a writ petition filed by the respondent, who had been appointed to the post of peon following a recruitment process initiated by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Kolar. The respondent had initially applied for the position in response to a notification dated 11.11.2011 that invited applications for posts including peons, stipulating the eligibility criteria as having passed VII Standard or equivalent examination.
The respondent submitted his application along with required documents, including a character certificate as mandated under the recruitment notification. He was called for an interview on 10.11.2016, during which he submitted all original documents. He was selected under a reserved category and subsequently submitted his caste and income certificates for verification. The authorities forwarded these to the Deputy Commissioner of Vijayapura District for verification and simultaneously requested a background check from the Superintendent of Police, Vijayapura District.
The verification of certificates yielded no adverse findings. However, the police report revealed that the respondent had been convicted under Section 87 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, and had paid a fine of Rs. 300 in C.C. No. 605/2013 before the JMFC Court of Muddebihal. Based on this report, the appointing authority cancelled the respondent's selection through a communication dated 20.09.2018.
The respondent challenged this cancellation by submitting a representation on 02.11.2018, stating that he had been wrongfully implicated while merely observing a crowd, and that his conviction under Section 87 pertained to gaming in public streets, a non-cognizable and petty offence. His representation was not accepted, leading him to file Writ Petition No. 4240/2019 on 23.01.2019.
The learned Single Judge allowed the petition, setting aside the cancellation order dated 20.09.2018. The appellants—the Chief Administrative Officer and the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar—filed an intra-court writ appeal challenging this judgment, contending that the respondent's concealment of the conviction justified cancellation of the appointment.
The appellants relied on Rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, which mandates that the appointing authority must be satisfied of a candidate's character. They argued that the respondent's conviction undermined his suitability for government service.
The Division Bench made detailed observations regarding the nature of the offence, the timeline of events, and the grounds for cancellation presented by the appellants.
"It was not the appellants' case that the respondent's appointment required to be terminated as he had failed to disclose his conviction for the said offence."
The court noted that the conviction occurred on 28.12.2013, after the respondent had submitted his application, and that the record did not indicate any specific question requiring disclosure of pending criminal cases or convictions.
"The statement of objections filed by the appellants to the writ petition, clearly indicates that it did not contain any averment to the effect that the respondent's appointment had been cancelled on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars."
The Division Bench referenced the decision of the Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana (1996) 4 SCC 17, which stated that not all convictions warrant disqualification from public employment, especially those not involving moral turpitude.
"The learned Single Judge, rejected the contention that the offence punishable under Section 87 of the KP Act was required to be construed as an offence involving moral turpitude."
Further, the court addressed the appellants’ reliance on Rule 10 of the KCS Rules: "There is no material on record to support the contention that the respondent's appointment was cancelled on account of non disclosure of his conviction."
The court also discussed the precedent set in T.S. Vasudevan Nair v. Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, where non-disclosure of a conviction for shouting slogans during emergency was not deemed material suppression.
The judgment extensively cited Avtar Singh vs. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471: "The suppression must be of 'material information' and not information that may not be material."
The court stated the Supreme Court’s view that trivial offences or non-disclosure of such should not automatically result in termination: "In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded... the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse."
"What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria... For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered."
"Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."
In light of the above, the court found that the cancellation was not justified based on the facts and circumstances.
The Division Bench affirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge: "In the given facts and circumstances of this case, we find no ground to fault the impugned order. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed."
The court held that the conviction for a petty offence was insufficient grounds for cancellation: "We concur with the view of the learned Single Judge that conviction for a petty offence would not be a ground for cancelling the offer of appointment."
Regarding non-disclosure: "It is also well-settled that non-disclosure of a conviction for petty offence, does not necessarily provide sufficient ground for cancellation of an appointment."
The court disposed of any pending applications and did not award costs: "Pending applications if any, stand disposed of. The parties are left to bear their own costs."
Case Title: The Chief Administrative Officer & Anr. vs. Sri Mallappa Basappa Sajjan
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC:27351-DB
Case Number: WA No. 860 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi
