Chattisgarh High Court
Chandra Shekhar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 July, 2025
1
SMT
NIRMALA
RAO
2025:CGHC:29953
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 1182 of 2018
1 - Chandra Shekhar Sahu S/o Anandi Sahu, Aged About 38 Years R/o
Village Kargadih, Police Station Utai, Tehsil, District Durg, Chhattisgarh,
District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Region Durg,
District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
3 - Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Region Durg, District
Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
4 - Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department, Division No. 1 Durg,
District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate
holding the brief of Shri B.P.
Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent/ State : Shri Pramod Ramteke, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
02.07.2025
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:-
"10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to
set aside the impugned order (ANNEXURE P1).
10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
call for entire records pertaining to the case of the
petitioner for its kind perusal.
10.3 That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper may also be granted in favor of the
petitioner safeguarding her interest."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the mother of
the petitioner, namely Smt. Shakuntala Sahu, who was posted as
a regular employee in the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub-
Division No.1, Durg, died in harness on 19.4.2017. The petitioner
moved an application for compassionate appointment, which was
granted vide order dated 24.6.2017 against a vacant and
sanctioned post of unskilled labour. He would contend that after
joining service, during character verification, it was found that an
FIR for the commission of an offence under Sections 457 & 380 of
IPC was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Utai,
District Durg, and this fact was not disclosed by the petitioner. He
would further contend that the petitioner was appointed on a
compassionate basis against a Class-IV post. He would also
submit that on 20.12.2017, respondent No.3 terminated the
services of the petitioner solely on this ground.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Avatar
Singh vs. Union of India and Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 471.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the
submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit
that an FIR for the commission of serious offenses was registered
against the petitioner, and this fact was not disclosed, therefore,
respondent No. 3 took a decision to terminate his services.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents present on the record.
5. The petitioner was appointed on a compassionate ground against
a sanctioned and vacant post of unskilled labour. However, the
petitioner failed to disclose the registration of an FIR for the
commission of an offence punishable under Sections 457 & 380 of
the IPC. In the character verification form, the petitioner did not
disclose the fact of the pendency of the criminal case.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Avtar Singh (supra),
while dealing with a similar issue in paragraph 38, held as under:-
"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.
38.7. 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."
7. A similar proposition was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. vs.
Abhijit Singh Pawar, (2018) 18 SCC 733 wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held in paragraphs 13, 14 & 16 as follows:-
''13. In Avtar Singh (supra), though this Court was
principally concerned with the question as to non-
disclosure or wrong disclosure of information, it was
observed in paragraph 38.5 that even in cases where a
truthful disclosure about a concluded case was made,
the employer would still have a right to consider
antecedents of the candidate and could not be compelled
to appoint such candidate.
14. In the present case, as on the date when the
respondent had applied, a criminal case was pending
against him. Compromise was entered into only after an
affidavit disclosing such pendency was filed. On the issue
of compounding of offences and the effect of acquittal
under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C., the law declared by this
Court in Mehar Singh (supra) (Commissioner of
Police, New Delhi and anr. Vs. Mehar Singh [(2013) 7
SCC 685], specially in paragraphs 34 and 35 completely
concludes the issue. Even after the disclosure is made
by a candidate, the employer would be well within his
rights to consider the antecedents and the suitability of
the candidate. While so considering, the employer can
certainly take into account the job profile for which the
selection is undertaken, the severity of the charges
levelled against the candidate and whether the acquittal
in question was an honourable acquittal or was merely
on the ground of benefit of doubt or as a result of
compromise.
16. We must observe at this stage that there is nothing
on record to suggest that the decision taken by the
concerned authorities in rejecting the candidature of the
respondent was in any way actuated by mala fides or
suffered on any other count. The decision on the
question of suitability of the respondent, in our
considered view, was absolutely correct and did not call
for any interference. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set
aside the decisions rendered by the Single Judge as well
as by the Division Bench and dismiss Writ Petition No.
9412 of 2013 preferred by the respondent. No costs.''
8. In the matter of Mohd. Imran vs. State of Maharashtra, reported
in (2019) 17 SCC 696, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in
paragraphs 5 to 6, as follows:-
''5. Employment opportunities is a scarce commodity in
our country. Every advertisement invites a large number
of aspirants for limited number of vacancies. But that
may not suffice to invoke sympathy for grant of relief
where the credentials of the candidate may raise serious
questions regarding suitability, irrespective of eligibility.
Undoubtedly, judicial service is very different from other
services and the yardstick of suitability that my apply to
other services, may not be the same for a judicial
service. But there cannot be any mechanical or rhetorical
incantation of moral turpitude, to deny appointment in
judicial service simplicitor. Much will depend on the facts
of a case. Every individual deserves an opportunity to
improve, learn from the past and move ahead in life by
self- improvement. To make past conduct, irrespective of
all considerations, albatross around the neck of the
candidate, may not always constitute justice. Much will,
however, depend on the fact situation of a case.
6. That the expression "moral turpitude" is not capable of
precise definition was considered in Pawan Kumar v.
State of Haryana, (1996) 4 SCC 17 opining :
"12. "Moral turpitude" is an expression which is
used in legal as also societal parlance to describe
conduct which is inherently base, vile, depraved
or having any connection showing depravity."
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Bunty
reported in (2020) 17 SCC 654 has held in paragraph 12, as
follows:-
"13. The law laid down in the aforesaid
decisions makes it clear that in case of acquittal
in a criminal case is based on the benefit of the
doubt or any other technical reason. The
employer can take into consideration all relevant
facts to take an appropriate decision as to the
fitness of an incumbent for appointment/
continuance in service. The decision taken by the
Screening Committee in the instant case could
not have been faulted by the Division Bench."
10. In the instant case, the petitioner failed to disclose the registration
of a criminal case against him while filling the verification form.
11. The offences registered against the petitioner are not of a grievous
nature. The petitioner was appointed as an unskilled labourer on a
compassionate basis. Since he was appointed as an unskilled
labour, credentials such as integrity, strict discipline, sincerity etc.
are not expected to the same extent as from officers/employees
holding executive, judicial or security force posts.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a strict view for
candidates/employees of higher posts or forces. However, in the
instant case, the petitioner was appointed as an unskilled labourer,
therefore, the respondents ought to have taken a more liberal
view.
13. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts and the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the order passed by
respondent No.3 dated 20.12.2017 is hereby quashed. The
respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner
for reinstatement, adopting a liberal approach.
14. The petitioner would be at liberty to move an application before
respondent authorities after reinstatement claiming therein arrears
of salary. The respondent authorities, after verifying the fact
whether the petitioner was gainfully employed somewhere or not,
may consider the claim of the petitioner for arrears of salary.
15. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the petition is
disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nimmi
