(Querist) 18 May 2021
This query is : Resolved
Sir, recently I was selected as a government employee through SSC MTS exam.4years back Me and my parents were convicted under ipc290 and 323 sections.Each one paid 700 rupees as fine on the court.total fine amount was 2100.will it have any impact on my job? please let me know 🙏🙏
(Expert) 19 May 2021
Were you convicted or pleaded guilty?
Advocate Bhartesh goyal
(Expert) 19 May 2021
You were convicted in offence u/sec 290 & 323 of IPC and court imposed fine on you.Fine is part of punishment so in my opinion it will create problem in your job.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 19 May 2021
IPC Section 290. Punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for Whoever commits a public nuisance in any case not otherwise punishable by this Code, shall be punished with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees Committing a public nuisance. Bailable and non cognizable offence;
Section 323 IPC states punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. As provided under the Section, “whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” Bailable, non-cognizable and compoundable offence;
Considering the charge for the offence under section 323 IPC, it may or may not hamper your service / employment opportunity after police verification of your character and antecedents.
(Querist) 21 May 2021
I was convicted.few experts are saying it will not affect my career as it is a petty case
(Expert) 22 May 2021
The guidelines in this context have been laid by the Supreme Court of India in Avtar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors -
"38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus:
38.1 Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information
38.2 While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.
38.3 The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
38.4 In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer,any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted : -
38.4.1 In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.
38.4.2 Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.
38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee
38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
38.6 In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.
38.7 In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.
38.8 If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, stillit may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
38.9 In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.
38.10 For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.
38.11 Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."
There are two aspects inherent. Firstly, if, during the process of selection and appointment, you are required to furnish the information as to pending criminal cases and you do not furnish the correct or complete information, the lapse amounts 'suppression of information'. Such a lapse amounts to deficit in integrity and you could be rated as unfit for public employment..
Secondly, if the trial ends in conviction, the offence involves moral turpitude or otherwise deemed to be serious, public employment could be denied.
In the instant case, the offence involved are not serious and involves no element of moral turpitude and as such, the conviction in the instant case, in my understanding, warrant no disqualification.