Chattisgarh High Court

Prahlad Prasad Rathour vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 January, 2025

2025:CGHC:1034
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Order Reserved on 03.10.2024
Order Delivered on 07.01.2025

WPS No. 2823 of 2024

1 - Prahlad Prasad Rathour S/o Bodhan Singh Aged About 39 Years R/o Village And
Post Lalpur Tahsil Pendra Road, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food Civil Supplies And Consumer
Protection Department Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Directorate Of Food Supplies And Consumer Protection Department Through
Director, Indravati Bhawan Nava Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. G.A.
SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

C A V ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

"A. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to quash/set-aside the order dated 15.03.2024,
issued by the Respondent No. 2/Director and all
consequences arising thereof and related thereto;
and
B. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to hold and declare that the termination of the
petitioners on the ground of his adverse/dubious
character is illegal and arbitrary; and
C. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to direct the Respondent No. 2/Director to reinstate
the petitioner on the post of Food Inspector; and
D. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
SHUBHAM to direct the Respondent No. 2/Director to grant all
DEY
consequential benefits including but not limited to
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
salary and emoluments upon the reinstatement of
DEY
Petitioner;and
2

E. Any other relief(s) in favour of the petitioner as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under
the facts and circumstances of the case with cost."

2. By this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the legality and sustainability

of the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 (Annexure P/1) whereby, the

service of the petitioner was terminated on the ground that the petitioner

has suppressed the material fact in his verification form and further, upon

receiving verification report, he has been held to be not fit (not suitable)

for appointment in government service.

3. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was

appointed on the post of Food Inspector {post reserved for Ex-

Serviceman (General)} vide order dated 30.08.2018. Upon receipt of the

order of appointment, he joined service. After receiving the police

verification report, taking note of the provisions under Rule 6 of the

Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961

(hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Rules, 1961) and Chhattisgarh

Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) rules, 1966 (hereinafter

for brevity referred to as the Rules, 1966) he was terminated from service

vide order dated 15.03.2024 (Annexure P/1).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the

respondents in terminating the petitioner from service is per se arbitrary

and does not pass the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He

contended that prior to the issuance of the order impugned dated

15.03.2024, no opportunity of hearing whatsoever was granted. Hence,

the order of termination dated 15.03.2024 (Annexure P/1) suffers from

violation of principles of natural justice, the order of termination was

issued after about 06 years of appointment. The order impugned,

terminating the service of the petitioner was passed based on the police

verification report, which is communication dated 02.05.2022 of the
3

Inspector General of Police, Raipur wherein, it is reported that the

character of the petitioner was found to be unfit and non-suitable for

government service. Petitioner prior to submitting 'Form' and joining the

State services was in Indian Navy and had an unblemished service

record. He joined the State services after honorary discharge from the

Indian Navy, through the open recruitment process for the post of Food

Inspector. He was selected and appointed on the post, reserved for Ex-

Serviceman.

5. He further contended that from the service records of Indian Navy and

release certificate issued by the committee, character of the petitioner

was assessed as "Exemplary" during the entire period of service with

Indian Navy. Petitioner was assessed as "Very Good" and was also

awarded 'Good Conduct Badge' for the years 2007, 2011, 2015. He

submits that the police verification report was based on two criminal

cases which were registered against the petitioner when he was just a

minor and that too, before joining of the Indian Navy service. The said

offences are not heinous in nature. The aforementioned crime was

registered on a trivial issue of dispute with the neighbor. Complaint is

lodged not only against the petitioner, but against the entire family

members including his father and mother.

6. He submits that as even after registration of the criminal cases, petitioner

has served in the Indian Navy for a period of about 15 years with the ACR

assessment of "very good". Case of the petitioner ought to have been

considered by the respondent authorities with leniency, even if the

petitioner, if for any reason, failed to furnish the details of criminal cases in

which the petitioner was acquitted in the year 2007, i.e. prior to submitting

application 'Form' for recruitment on the post of Food Inspector. In support

of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision in the cases of
4

Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471, Ravindra

Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2024) 5 SCC 264.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State

vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner

and would submit that the petitioner indisputably was involved in criminal

cases registered on 21.08.2002 for the offences punishable under

Sections 323, 294 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The said

criminal case was compromised between the parties in the Lok Adalat

vide order dated 23.09.2007. He submits that from the aforementioned

facts, it is apparent that the petitioner was chargesheeted and the

charges were also framed against him. Copy of the RR Register which is

filed along with the petition would show that the petitioner was acquitted

from the charges under Section 294, 341, 506 (Part II), 324/34 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860. The order of appointment in specific terms

bears Clause III where it is clearly mentioned that if in the character

verification, adverse comment is found, then the candidate will be

terminated from the service, the appointment order is issued in

anticipation of the character verification. The petitioner has not disclosed

the registration of criminal cases against him of which, he was charged for

the offence and thereafter, acquitted from the charges by the Lok Adalat

on the basis of compromise entered between the parties. Registration of

criminal case has not been disclosed in the verification 'Form' by the

petitioner and hence, the petitioner has suppressed the material fact of

registration of criminal case i.e. two FIRs were registered against the

petitioner and in both the FIRs, the criminal cases was culminated on the

ground of compromise entered into between the parties which does not

mean that the petitioner is absolved from the liability of giving correct and

fair information, to which, he was bound to give information as per the

clauses of the verification form.
5

8. It is the contention of learned counsel for respondent that the ground of

not providing an opportunity of hearing before passing an order in the

facts of the case would be futile exercise as there is admission on the part

of the petitioner that the facts mentioned are correct and therefore, it is

also the contention that the offences for which, the petitioner faced

criminal trial attracts moral turpitude as he was not acquitted honorably by

the Court and hence, no ground is made out by the petitioner for the

relief(s) as sought for in the writ petition. In support of his contention,

learned counsel for the Respondent/State places reliance upon the

decision in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.

(2023) 7 SCC 536, Jainendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

through Principal Secretary, Home and Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 748.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the

documents placed on record.

10.In the case at hand, petitioner submitted an application for his

appointment on the post of Food Inspector after he was honorary

discharged from the service of Indian Navy. He worked in Indian Navy as

per the documents available on record (Annexure P/4) from 31.01.2003 to

31.01.2018 i.e. for a period of 15 years. The order dated 23.09.2007

(Annexure P/5) enclosed along with the writ petition is an order passed by

the learned Lok Adalat wherein, the petitioner along with 03 others have

been acquitted from the charges under Section 323, 294, r/w 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 on compromise entered between the parties.

Another order is dated 23.09.2007 of the learned Lok Adalat in Criminal

Case No. 59/2003 which was disposed of by the Court of Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Pendra in an offence under Section 294, 341, 506

(Part II), 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

11. Admittedly, the petitioner has applied for the post of Food Inspector in the

category of Ex-Serviceman, when he has completed the age of more than
6

31 years of age after his retirement/discharge from Indian Navy service

with pension. The case which was registered against the petitioner has

been reported to be attracting moral turpitude as per the list of offences

mentioned in the guidelines/circular issued by the State Government

dated 04.02.2012 with respect to the verification of the character of a

candidate in which, Section 324 has been shown to be an offence

attracting moral turpitude.

12.On the date of submission of the application 'Form', the criminal cases

were registered against the petitioner, he was charge-sheeted and the

charges were also framed against him, however, he was acquitted from

the charges in one case on account of compromise entered into between

the parties and another, acquitted from the Court of competent

jurisdiction. However, the order of acquittal passed in Criminal Case No.

59/2003 is not placed on record.

13.Rule 6 of the Rules, 1961 deals with disqualification of a person/candidate

for his appointment in government service. Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 6 of the

Rules, 1961 reads as under:-

"(3) No Candidate shall be eligible for appointment to
a service or post if, after such enquiry as may be
considered necessary, the appointing authority is
satisfied that he is not suitable in any respect for
service or post."

14. From the aforementioned provision under Rule 6 (3), it is specifically

provided that it is the appointing authority, based on the enquiry has to

assess the suitability of the candidate for his appointment on service or

post. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. M.

Bhaskaran (1995) Supp. 4 SCC 100 has observed thus:-

"(6) It is not necessary for us to express any opinion
on the applicability of Rule 3(1)(i) and (iii) on the
facts of the present cases for the simple reason that
in our view the railway employees concerned,
respondents herein, have admittedly snatched
7

employment in railway service, maybe of a casual
nature, by relying upon forged or bogus casual
labourer service cards. The unauthenticity of the
service cards on the basis of which they got
employment is clearly established on record of the
departmental enquiry held against the employees
concerned. Consequently, it has to be held that the
respondents were guilty of misrepresentation and
fraud perpetrated on the appellant-employer while
getting employed in railway service and had
snatched such employment which would not have
been made available to them if they were not armed
with such bogus and forged labourer service cards.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
for getting service in railway as casual labourers, it
was strictly not necessary for the respondents to rely
upon such casual service cards. If that was so there
was no occasion for them to produce such bogus
certificates/service cards for getting employed in
railway service. Therefore, it is too late in the day for
the respondents to submit that production of such
bogus or forged service cards had not played its role
in getting employed in railway service. It was clearly
a case of fraud on the appellant-employer. If once
such fraud is detected, the appointment orders
themselves which were found to be tainted and
vitiated by fraud and acts of cheating on the part of
employees, were liable to be recalled and were at
least voidable at the option of the employer
concerned. This is precisely what has happened in
the present case. Once the fraud of the respondents
in getting such employment was detected, the
respondents were proceeded against in
departmental enquiries and were called upon to
have their say and thereafter have been removed
from service. Such orders of removal would amount
to recalling of fraudulently obtained erroneous
appointment orders which were avoided by the
employer-appellant after following the due procedure
of law and complying with the principles of natural
justice. Therefore, even independently of Rule 3(1)(i)
and (iii) of the Rules, such fraudulently obtained
appointment orders could be legitimately treated as
voidable at the option of the employer and could be
recalled by the employer and in such cases merely
because the respondent-employees have continued
in service for a number of years on the basis of such
fraudulently obtained employment orders cannot
create any equity in their favour or any estoppel
against the employer. In this connection we may
8

usefully refer to a decision of this Court in Distt.
Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare
Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari
Devi [(1990) 3 SCC 655 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 520 :
(1990) 14 ATC 766] . In that case Sawant, J.

speaking for this Court held that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the concerned appointee. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. It is of course true as noted by the Tribunal that the facts of the case in the aforesaid decision were different from the facts of the present case. And it is also true that in that case pending the service which was continued pursuant to the order of the Tribunal the candidate concerned acquired the requisite qualification and hence his appointment was not disturbed by this Court. But that is neither here nor there. As laid down in the aforesaid decision, if by committing fraud any employment is obtained, such a fraudulent practice cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a court of law. Consequently, it must be held that the Tribunal had committed a patent error of law in directing reinstatement of the respondent-workmen with all consequential benefits. The removal orders could not have been faulted by the Tribunal as they were the result of a sharp and fraudulent practice on the part of the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that these illiterate respondents were employed as casual labourers years back in 1983 and subsequently they have been given temporary status and, therefore, after passage of such a long time they should not be thrown out of employment. It is difficult to agree with this contention. By mere passage of time a fraudulent practice would not get any sanctity. The appellant authorities having come to know about the fraud of the respondents in obtaining employment as casual labourers, started departmental proceedings years back in 1987 and these proceedings have dragged on for a number of years. Earlier, removal

orders of the respondents were set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and proceedings were remanded and after remand, fresh removal orders were passed by the appellant which have been set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench and which are the subject-matter of the present proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellants are estopped from recalling such fraudulently obtained employment orders of the respondents subject of course to following due procedure of law and in due compliance with the principles of natural justice, on which aspect there is no dispute between the parties. If any lenient view is taken on the facts of the present case in favour of the respondents, then it would amount to putting premium on dishonesty and sharp practice which on the facts of the present cases cannot be permitted."

15. In the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. Vs. Ram Ratan

Yadav (2003) 3 SCC 437, Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the

suppression of fact by Teacher has upheld the order of termination and

has observed thus:-

"(12) The object of requiring information in columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form and certification thereafter by the candidate was to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to continue in service. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service.

The employer having regard to the nature of the employment and all other aspects had the discretion to terminate his services, which is made expressly clear in para 9 of the offer of appointment. The purpose of seeking information as per columns 12 and 13 was not to find out either the nature or gravity of the offence or the result of a criminal case ultimately. The information in the said columns was sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the respondent to continue in service or not. The High Court, in our view, has failed to see this aspect of the matter. It went wrong in saying that the criminal case had been subsequently withdrawn and that the offences, in which the respondent was alleged to have been involved, were also not of serious nature. In the present case the respondent was to serve as a Physical Education Teacher in

Kendriya Vidyalaya. The character, conduct and antecedents of a teacher will have some impact on the minds of the students of impressionable age. The appellants having considered all the aspects passed the order of dismissal of the respondent from service. The Tribunal after due consideration rightly recorded a finding of fact in upholding the order of dismissal passed by the appellants. The High Court was clearly in error in upsetting the order of the Tribunal. The High Court was again not right in taking note of the withdrawal of the case by the State Government and that the case was not of a serious nature to set aside the order of the Tribunal on that ground as well. The respondent accepted the offer of appointment subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein with his eyes wide open. Para 9 of the said memorandum extracted above in clear terms kept the respondent informed that the suppression of any information may lead to dismissal from service. In the attestation form, the respondent has certified that the information given by him is correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief; if he could not understand the contents of columns 12 and 13, he could not certify so. Having certified that the information given by him is correct and complete, his version cannot be accepted. The order of termination of services clearly shows that there has been due consideration of various aspects. In this view, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that as per para 9 of the memorandum, the termination of service was not automatic, cannot be accepted."

16. In the case of R. Radhakrishnan Vs. Director General of Police (2008)

1 SCC 660, Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the appointment of

an employee in uniform service and observed thus:-

"(10) Indisputably, the appellant intended to obtain appointment in a uniformed service. The standard expected of a person intended to serve in such a service is different from the one of a person who intended to serve in other services. Application for appointment and the verification roll were both in Hindi as also in English. He, therefore, knew and understood the implication of his statement or omission to disclose a vital information. The fact that in the event such a disclosure had been made, the authority could have verified his character as also suitability of the appointment is not in dispute. It is

also not in dispute that the persons who had not made such disclosures and were, thus, similarly situated had not been appointed.

(11) The question came up for consideration before this Court in Delhi Admn. v. Sushil Kumar [(1996) 11 SCC 605 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 492] wherein it was categorically held : (SCC p. 606, para 3)

"3. ... The Tribunal in the impugned order allowed the application on the ground that since the respondent had been discharged and/or acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC, under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 324 IPC, he cannot be denied the right of appointment to the post under the State. The question is whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct in law? It is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted."

By observing the aforementioned case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

observed that the appellant has suppressed the material fact. In case of

this nature, we are of the opinion that the question of exercising any

equitable jurisdiction in his favour would not arise and dismissed the

appeal.

17. In the case of Jainendra Singh (Supra), the principles have been

summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, taking note of the earlier

decisions on the issue and observed thus:-

"(29) As noted by us, all the above decisions were rendered by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of two Judges and having bestowed our serious consideration to the issue, we consider that while dealing with such an issue, the Court will have to

bear in mind the various cardinal principles before granting any relief to the aggrieved party, namely:

29.1. Fraudulently obtained orders of appointment could be legitimately treated as voidable at the option of the employer or could be recalled by the employer and in such cases merely because the respondent employee has continued in service for a number of years, on the basis of such fraudulently obtained employment, cannot get any equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer."

In the aforementioned decision, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 29 has

observed that fraudulently obtained orders of appointment could be

legitimately treated as voidable on the option of the employer or could be

recalled by the employer and in such cases, merely because the

respondent/employer has continued in service for a number of years on

the basis of such fraudulently obtained employment, cannot get any

equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer and further, the

verification of the character and the antecedents is one of the important

criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to the post under

the State.

18. In the case of Avtar Singh (Supra), three Judges Bench of Hon'ble

Supreme Court after considering its earlier decisions has observed thus:-

"(29) The verification of antecedents is necessary to find out fitness of incumbent, in the process if a declarant is found to be of good moral character on due verification of antecedents, merely by suppression of involvement in trivial offence which was not pending on date of filling attestation form, whether he may be deprived of employment? There may be case of involving moral turpitude/serious offence in which employee has been acquitted but due to technical reasons or giving benefit of doubt.

There may be situation when person has been convicted of an offence before filling verification form or case is pending and information regarding it has been suppressed, whether employer should wait till outcome of pending criminal case to take a decision or in case when action has been initiated there is already conclusion of criminal case resulting in conviction/acquittal as the case may be. The

situation may arise for consideration of various aspects in a case where disclosure has been made truthfully of required information, then also authority is required to consider and verify fitness for appointment. Similarly in case of suppression also, if in the process of verification of information, certain information comes to notice then also employer is required to take a decision considering various aspects before holding incumbent as unfit. If on verification of antecedents a person is found fit at the same time authority has to consider effect of suppression of a fact that he was tried for trivial offence which does not render him unfit, what importance to be attached to such non-disclosure. Can there be single yardstick to deal with all kinds of cases?

(30). The employer is given "discretion" to terminate or otherwise to condone the omission. Even otherwise, once employer has the power to take a decision when at the time of filling verification form declarant has already been convicted/acquitted, in such a case, it becomes obvious that all the facts and attending circumstances, including impact of suppression or false information are taken into consideration while adjudging suitability of an incumbent for services in question. In case the employer comes to the conclusion that suppression is immaterial and even if facts would have been disclosed it would not have adversely affected fitness of an incumbent, for reasons to be recorded, it has power to condone the lapse. However, while doing so employer has to act prudently on due consideration of nature of post and duties to be rendered. For higher officials/higher posts, standard has to be very high and even slightest false information or suppression may by itself render a person unsuitable for the post. However, same standard cannot be applied to each and every post. In concluded criminal cases, it has to be seen what has been suppressed is material fact and would have rendered an incumbent unfit for appointment. An employer would be justified in not appointing or if appointed, to terminate services of such incumbent on due consideration of various aspects. Even if disclosure has been made truthfully, the employer has the right to consider fitness and while doing so effect of conviction and background facts of case, nature of offence, etc. have to be considered. Even if acquittal has been made, employer may consider nature of offence, whether acquittal is honourable or

giving benefit of doubt on technical reasons and decline to appoint a person who is unfit or of dubious character. In case employer comes to conclusion that conviction or ground of acquittal in criminal case would not affect the fitness for employment, incumbent may be appointed or continued in service. (33). 33. The fraud and misrepresentation vitiates a transaction and in case employment has been obtained on the basis of forged documents, as observed in M. Bhaskaran case, it has also been observed in the reference order that if an appointment was procured fraudulently, the incumbent may be terminated without holding any inquiry, however, we add a rider that in case employee is confirmed, holding a civil post and has protection of Article 311(2), due inquiry has to be held before terminating the services. The case of obtaining appointment on the basis of forged documents has the effect on very eligibility of incumbent for the job in question, however, verification of antecedents is different aspect as to his fitness otherwise for the post in question. The fraudulently obtained appointment orders are voidable at the option of employer, however, question has to be determined in the light of the discussion made in this order on impact of suppression or submission of false information. (35). Suppression of "material" information presupposes that what is suppressed that "matters" not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases. (38). We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise 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 recourses 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.

38.6. 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, still it 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."

19. In the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India (2023) 12 SCC 317 while

considering the case of the appellant therein of not disclosing the criminal

prosecution in the attestation form filled by the petitioner and on the said

ground, discharge from service has observed thus:-

"(13) What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the

objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What has been noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service.

(19). The criminal case indeed was of trivial nature and the nature of post and nature of duties to be discharged by the recruit has never been looked into by the competent authority while examining the overall suitability of the incumbent keeping in view Rule 52 of the 1987 RPF Rules to become a member of the force. Taking into consideration the exposition expressed by this Court in Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 :

(2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] , in our considered view the order of discharge passed by the competent authority dated 24-4-2015 is not sustainable and in sequel thereto the judgment [Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14648] passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi does not hold good and deserves to be set aside."

20. In the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & Anr.

Vs. Anil Kanwariya (2021) 10 SCC 136 while considering the termination

of a Technical Helper by Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited

on account of non-disclosure of the criminal case registered against him

and was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 143, 341,

323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but granted benefit of The Probation

of the Offenders Act, 1958, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus:
"(13) Even otherwise, subsequently getting the benefit of Section 12 of the 1958 Act shall not be helpful to the respondent inasmuch as the question is about filing a false declaration on 14-4-2015 that neither any criminal case is pending against him nor has he been convicted by any court of law, which was much prior to the order passed by the learned Sessions Court granting the benefit of Section 12 of the 1958 Act. As observed hereinabove, even in case of subsequent acquittal, the employee once made a false declaration and/or suppressed the material fact of pending criminal case shall not be entitled to an appointment as a matter of right.

(14). The issue/question may be considered from another angle, from the employer's point of view.

The question is not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently acquitted or not. The question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of the employment i.e. while submitting the declaration/verification and/or applying for a post made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressing material fact of having involved in a criminal case. If the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him. Then the question is of TRUST. Therefore, in such a situation, where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to the employer. At the cost of repetition, it is observed and as observed hereinabove in catena of decision such an employee cannot claim the appointment and/or continue to be in service as a matter of right.

(15) In view of the aforestated facts and circumstances of the case, both, the learned Division Bench as well as the learned Single Judge have clearly erred in quashing and setting aside the order of termination terminating the services of the respondent on the ground of having obtained an appointment by suppressing material fact and filing a false declaration. The order of reinstatement is wholly untenable and unjustified."

21. In the case of Satish Chandra Yadav (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court

has observed thus:-

"(101) Indisputably, Satish Chandra Yadav was still under probation at the time his services had been terminated. It is also apparent from the record that Satish Chandra Yadav had been given appointment on probation subject to the verification of facts given in the verification form. To our mind, therefore, if an enquiry revealed that the facts given were wrong, the respondent herein was at liberty to dispense with the services of the appellant Satish Chandra Yadav as

the question of any stigma and penal consequences at this stage would not arise. It bears repetition that what has led to the termination of the services of the appellant Satish Chandra Yadav is not his involvement in the criminal case which was then pending, and in which he had been acquitted subsequently but the fact that he had withheld relevant information while filling in the verification form. He could be said to have exhibited or displayed such a tendency which shook the confidence of the respondent.

(103). Ms Madhavi Divan, the learned ASG has rightly relied on Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan 10 in which this Court held that the purpose of requiring an employee to furnish information regarding prosecution/conviction, etc. in the verification form was to assess his character and antecedents for the purpose of employment and continuation in service;

that suppression of material information and making a false statement in reply to the queries relating to prosecution and conviction had a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee; and that where it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters which had a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he could be terminated from service during the period of probation without holding any inquiry. This Court also made it clear that neither the gravity of the criminal offence nor the ultimate acquittal therein was relevant when considering whether a probationer who suppresses a material fact (of his being involved in a criminal case, in the personal information furnished to the employer), is fit to be continued as a probationer."

22. The decision in the case of Ravindra Kumar (Supra) relied upon by the

counsel for the petitioner is on different facts. In the said case, the

applicant was involved in criminal case after submitting the application

'Form'. He participated in the recruitment proceedings, cleared written

examination, interview and the physical efficiency test and was

subsequently acquitted in criminal case vide judgment dated 13.09.2004.

He submitted an affidavit on 03.10.2004 mentioning that no criminal case

cognizable or non-cognizable has ever been registered against him in that

case, the Court considered that the verification form wherein, it is

mentioned the registered crime for offence under Section 324, 352, 504 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860 no other case was pending and the certification

of the Sub-Divisional Officer that the character of the candidate is

excellent, as per my consent, the candidate is liable to do government

service under the State Government. The Court also took note of

character certificate issued by the Gram Pradhan who has given the

certificate "Excellent", the Superintendent of Police also recommended

the candidate to be eligible to do government service under the State

Government. However, the State Government considered the letter of

Inspector General of Police (PAC) that on submission false affidavit,

action should be taken as per their discretion or government orders.

23. Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case have considered the earlier decisions

including the position in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav (Supra) and

has observed that the facts of the case and in backdrop of the special

circumstances, as set-out here-in-above, where it is the non-disclosure of

unfortunate criminal case and considering that case to be one of the facts

had allowed the appeal.

24.In the case at hand, petitioner was an ex-employee of Indian Navy, he

was well aware of the importance of submitting the correct information in

verification Form and the consequences of disclosing or not disclosing the

facts in relevant clauses mentioned therein. In particular, Para 12,

information as sought in the verification 'Form' (Annexure R/1) is very

clear and specific, relevant portion of which is extracted below:-

" 12. (क) क्या आप कभी गिरफ्तार किए गए हैं, क्या आप पर कभी अभियोजन चलाया गया है. क्या आप कभी निरूद्ध किए गए हैं या आपसे मुचलका लिया गया है, आप पर जुर्माना किया गया है, क्या आप किसी अपराध के लिए न्यायालय द्वारा दोषी ठहराये गये हैं, या आपको किसी भी लोक सेवा आयोग द्वारा, उसके द्वारा संचालित परीक्षाओं/ किए जाने वाले चयनों में सम्मिलित होने से वर्जित किया गया है, उसके लिए अनर्ह ठहराया गया है, या क्या आपको किसी भी विश्वविद्यालय या किसी भी अन्य शैक्षणिक प्राधिकरण / संस्था द्वारा

किसी भी परीक्षा में बैठने से वर्जित किया गया है/ निष्कासित किया गया है ।.

ख) क्या इस अनुप्रमाणन फार्म को भरते समय किसी भी न्यायालय, विश्वविद्यालय या किसी भी शैक्षणिक प्राधिकरण / संस्था में आपके विरूद्ध कोई मामला लंबित है ?

यदि (क) अथवा (ख) में पूछे गये प्रश्नों के संबंध में आपके उत्तर "हां"

में हो तो आपको इस अनुप्रमाणन फार्म को मरते समय मामले, गिरफ्तारी, निरोध, जुर्माना, दोषसिद्ध तथा दण्डादेश आदि के पूरे ब्यौरे प्रस्तुत करने चाहिए तथा इस फार्म को भरते समय न्यायालय / विश्वविद्यालय / शैक्षणिक प्राधिकरण आदि के समक्ष जो मामला लंबित हो उसका स्वरूप बतलाना चाहिए। इस जानकारी के अतिरिक्त, जहां लागू हो वहां निम्नलिखित ब्यौरे भी दिए जायेंगे- (एक) अपराध / आरोप.

(दो) पुलिस थाने में पंजीयित.

(तीन) यदि न्यायालय में चालान किया गया न्यायालय का नाम (चार) मामल का कमांक न्यायालय द्वारा उसका निपटारा, किस तारीख का दिया गया (पाच) दिया गया दण्ड (छ) क्या दोषमुक्त कर दिया गया (सात) दोषमुक्ति संदेह के लाभ पर आधारित थी या मामला वापस ले लिया गया था :

(टिप्पणी : कृ पया इस अनुप्रमाणन फार्म के ऊपर दी गई "चेतावनी"

भी देखें)"

25.There is no ambiguity in the information as sought, but it has also been

made clear in Para 12 and clauses mentioned therein. It appears that the

petitioner who was an Ex-serviceman has purposefully and with ill-

intention had not disclosed the correct facts. According to the service

rules applicable to the facts of the case, if the correct information of the

involvement of the petitioner in criminal case and his acquittal or

conviction would had disclosed, the appointing authority could have

applied his mind based on the rules, circulars whether the offence/crime

registered attracts moral turpitude or not and suitability of the petitioner for

his appointment. At this stage, Court is not to consider the gravity of the

offence registered against petitioner, but the act of deliberate attempt of

not disclosing the correct fact in the verification Form. Hence, in the

aforementioned facts of the case, even if, the petitioner has worked for a

considerable period of about more than 05 years, equity does not lie in his

favour.

26.For the foregoing discussions and considering the decisions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court and the guidelines issued, I do not find any error

in decision making process of the respondent in terminating the services

of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition being sans merit, it is liable

to be and is accordingly, dismissed.
             Sd/-                                                  Sd/-
                                                           (Parth Prateem Sahu)
                                                                   Judge
Dey
 