Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Bhavan Yadav vs Union Of India on 1 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16247
1 WP-9065-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 9065 of 2025
RAM BHAVAN YADAV
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anoop Nair - Senior Advocate with Ms. Devyani Singh - Advocate for
the petitioner.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vinay Saraf
1. By the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 05.12.2024
passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur in Original
Application No.200/760/2017, whereby the learned Tribunal upheld the action of
respondent by which the selection of the petitioner on the post of 'Turner'
(semiskilled) was turned down on the ground that the petitioner had suppressed the
information regarding registration of the criminal case against him in the
attestation form.
2. Heard Shri Anoop Nair, learned Senior counsel along with Ms. Devyani
Singh, counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission.
3. Short facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued by the ordinance
factory, Itarsi in the employment news edition, dated 27 th February - 4 th March,
2016, whereby the applications were invited from the eligible candidates for
appointment to the post of Turner (Semiskilled) in the ordinance factory, Itarsi.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16247
2 WP-9065-2025
The petitioner submitted application and his candidature before the respondent
organization and appeared in the written examination held on and 7th and 8 th of
May, 2016 and trade examination (skill test) conducted between 31.07.2016 to
07.08.2016 at Bhopal. The petitioner was qualified in the written examination as
well as trade examination and his name was placed in the provisional merit list.
After the declaration of result by order dated 03.10.2016, the petitioner was
directed to appear in the office of ordinance factory, Itarsi on 25.10.2016 for the
purpose of submission of document verification sheet and attestation form. The
petitioner did not disclose registration of criminal case under Section 354, 323
and 325 of IPC bearing criminal case No.4017/2015 in the attestation form and
also replied to a question in negative that whether he was ever been prosecuted?
4 . The attestation form of the petitioner was forwarded to the police for
verification and a report was received from the office of Collector, Ajamgarh (UP)
that criminal case was registered against the petitioner under Section 354, 323 and
325 of IPC, wherein the petitioner was acquitted on 23.09.2016. After receipt of
aforesaid information a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on
11.05.2017 and the petitioner was called upon to submit explanation as to why
the candidature of the petitioner should not be cancelled as he suppressed the
information regarding registration of criminal case against him. The petitioner
submitted his reply on 23.05.2017 therein an explanation was offered by the
petitioner that since the petitioner was already acquitted in the criminal case,
therefore the petitioner did not disclose the factum of registration of criminal case
against him and replied the questions in negative. The respondent organization by
order dated 30.08.2017 cancelled the candidature /selection of the petitioner to the
post of 'Turner' (Semiskilled) by assigning the reason that the petitioner
suppressed the factum of involvement of petitioner in a criminal case of moral
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16247
3 WP-9065-2025
turpitude, wherein the petitioner was acquitted on account of benefit of doubt,
therefore he has not been found fit for employment.
5 . Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 30.08.2017, the petitioner
approached to Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur by preferring a original
application bearing No. 200/760/2017 which was dismissed by the Learned
Tribunal by impugned order dated 05.12.2024, hence the present petition has been
preferred by the petitioner with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated
30.08.2017 passed by the respondent organization and order dated 05.12.2024
passed by learned Tribunal.
6. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the
criminal case the petitioner was already acquitted by judgment dated 23.09.2016
and therefore the petitioner did not disclose the same in the attestation form under
the belief that there was no requirement to mention the disposed of criminal case.
He further submits that hence the petitioner had been acquitted from the charges
prior to filing of attestation form, the cancellation of the candidature of the
petitioner is unjustified and arbitrary. Learned senior counsel further submits that
the criminal case was registered against the petitioner, on the basis of false and
frivolous allegations and the charges levelled against the petitioner were of minor
nature which had no correlation with the post on which the petitioner has been
selected. He further submits that by no stretch of imagination it can be presumed
that the petitioner intentionally suppressed the material information regarding
registration of criminal case and his acquittal. As the petitioner had already been
acquitted in the criminal trial, there was no occasion for the petitioner to suppress
the said fact deliberately or willingly and the same cannot be a ground for denial of
employment.
7. He relied on the judgment delivered by Apex court in the matter of State of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16247
4 WP-9065-2025
West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Mitul Kumar Jana (2023) 14 SCC 719 and Ravindra
Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2024) 5 SCC 264.
8. Learned senior counsel also handed over the photocopy of the judgment of
acquittal delivered by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajamgarh in criminal case
No.4017 of 2015 dated 23.09.2016 to bolster his argument that the petitioner was
actually acquitted in the criminal case even before submission of attestation form.
9. After consideration of arguments advanced by learned Senior counsel on behalf
of the petitioner and after perusal of the judgment of acquittal delivered by Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ajamgarh, it appears that a criminal case was registered
against the petitioner under Section 354, 323 and 325 of IPC upon the allegation
that the petitioner along with co-accused persons at 5'O Clock in the morning on
08.07.2003 with an intention to commit rape with the daughters of the informant
caught their hands and tried to drag them into the fields and when the mother of the
girls tried to save them they attacked on her and caused grievous injury. They
caused grievous injury to the father of the girls also. During the pendency of the
case, the informant died and therefore could not be examined, however her
husband and daughters did not support the prosecution story due to compromise
and therefore, the petitioner and co-accused persons were acquitted by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ajamgarh by extending the benefit of doubt to them.
10. Apex Court has already decided the controversy in respect of issue relating to
suppression of information and/or submission of false information in respect of
criminal case in the matter of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471
and after considering various judgments has taken a holistic approach and
summarized certain yardsticks in para 38, which is reproduced 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:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16247
5 WP-9065-2025
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16247
6 WP-9065-2025
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.'
11. In the matter of Mitul Kumar Jana (Supra), the Apex court after considering
the facts of the case was of the opinion that the aspirant was not involved in
heinous/ serious offence or any offence involving moral turpitude and the fact that
in the said criminal case he has been honorably acquitted. In the said
circumstances, Apex court held that the aspirant should be appointed by observing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16247
7 WP-9065-2025
that the authorities should exercise their discretion judiciously in assessing the
suitability and antecedents of prospective candidates. The facts of the case in hand
are different. In the present matter, the offence involving moral turpitude was
registered against the petitioner and the petitioner was acquitted by extending
benefit of doubt, therefore the said judgment is not helpful to the petitioner.
12. Apex court in the matter of Ravindra Kumar (supra), reiterated that though
persons suppressing material information cannot claim unfettered right for
appointment but the power must be exercised reasonably with objectively , after
due consideration of all relevant aspects. Apex Court further held that each case
depends upon the facts and circumstances prevailing thereon and court must take
holistic view, based on objective criteria with precedents serving as guide and
mechanical cancellation of candidates for suppression / misrepresentation of fact
in verification form is improper. In the said matter, after submission of the
application for recruitment a criminal case was registered against the aspirant
therein under Section 324, 352 and 504 of IPC, wherein he was acquitted even
before submission of attestation of affidavit, wherein he inter alia stated that no
criminal case, cognizable or non cognizable has ever been registered against him.
After considering the facts of the case, Apex Court has held that in the peculiar
facts of the case, non disclosure of a criminal case, was not fatal for the aspirant
and cannot be treated as disqualification. The Apex court further held that each
case will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case that prevailing thereon
and the court will have to take a holistic view based on objective criteria with the
available precedents serving as guide. The Apex court set out certain special
features for reaching to the conclusion that non disclosure of the unfortunate
criminal case which ended in acquittal was not sufficient to the disqualify the
aspirant for appointment. Under the special circumstances, the Supreme court has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16247
8 WP-9065-2025
held that the petitioner therein was entitled for appointment. The facts of the
present case are different and in the present case, the allegations were serious
involving moral turpitude and the acquittal was not honorable. Therefore the said
judgment is also not helpful to the petitioner. However it is relevant to reproduce
para 32 of the said judgment which reads as under:-
32''The nature of the office, the timing and nature of the criminal
case; the overall consideration of the judgment of acquittal; the
nature of the query in the application/verification form; the
contents of the character verification reports; the socio-economic
strata of the individual applying; the other antecedents of the
candidate; the nature of consideration and the contents of the
cancellation/termination order are some of the crucial aspects
which should enter the judicial verdict in adjudging suitability
and in determining the nature of relief to be ordered.''
13. Supreme Court dealing with similar case in the matter of Director
General of Police, Tamilnadu Mayilapur vs. J. Raghunees (2023) 16 SCC
647 has held as under;
'14. In other words, the candidate in the first instance is obliged to give
correct information as to his conviction, acquittal or arrest or
pendency of the criminal case and there should be no suppression or
false mention of required information. Secondly, even if truthful
declaration is made by him, he would not be entitled to appointment
as a matter of right and that the employer still has the right to
consider his antecedents.
15. In the case at hand, though the respondent may be eligible for
appointment but since he has not disclosed the complete information
with regard to his involvement in a criminal case, wherein he might
have been acquitted earlier even before verification, he cannot escape
the guilt of suppressing the material information as required by
Column 15 of the verification roll. Keeping in mind that the
respondent was a candidate for recruitment to a disciplined force, the
non-disclosure of the information of his involvement in the criminal
case and subsequent acquittal therefrom cast a serious doubt upon
his character and the antecedents which is sufficient enough to
disentitle him from employment.'
14. In the matter of Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India and Ors. (2023)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16247
9 WP-9065-2025
7 SCC 536 , the Supreme Court has held that the discretionary decisions of
administrative authority can be reviewed only on limited grounds such as faith
decision maker committee mistake, exercise of discretion for improper purpose,
application of irrelevant consideration and unreasonableness. Discretionary
decisions taken by the administrative authorities must be made within the limits of
jurisdiction conferred by statutory rules though due difference will be given to
decisions of decision maker while reviewing exercise of that discretion and
determining scope of jurisdiction. After considering the earlier various judgments
of Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has shortlisted the broad principles of law
which should be made applicable to the litigations regarding cancellation of
appointment due to non disclosure of criminal cases in the attestation form. The
Supreme Court has held that even in a case where the employee had made
declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case, the employer
still has a right to consider the antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint
the candidate. The acquittal in a criminal case would not be automatically entitle a
candidate for appointment to the post. It would be still open to the employer to
consider the antecedents and examine whether candidate concerned is suitable and
fit for appointment to the post. The suppression of material information and
making a false statement in the verification form relating to arrest, prosecution,
conviction ,etc. has a clear bearing on the character, conduct, antecedents of the
employee. If it is found that employee had suppressed or given false information in
regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post he
can be terminated from the services. The court should enquire whether the
authority concerned whose action is being challenged acted mala fide and is there
any element of bias in the decision of the authority. In the absence of any mala
fide action or biasness, the decision of the authority should not be interfered.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16247
10 WP-9065-2025
15. For determining suppression or false information in attestation/verification
form, the facts and circumstances of the case are material and while passing the
order of cancellation of candidature for giving false information or suppressing the
material fact , the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if
any, while dealing such information. No doubt 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. The Supreme Court has
given full discretion to the appointing authority to take appropriate decision for
issuance of order of appointment or refusal for the same. After considering the
antecedents, the nature of the allegations in the criminal case objectively, the
employer should exercise his discretion. On perusal of prosecution story of the
criminal case, registered against the petitioner, it is apparent that the allegations in
the criminal case were serious in nature involving moral turpitude and the
petitioner was acquitted due to death of the informant before examination and on
account of turning hostile the other prosecution witnesses in furtherance of
compromise. It cannot be accepted that the allegations in the said criminal case
were trivial in nature and it was honorable acquittal. The judgment was delivered
in criminal case on 23.09.2016 and soon thereafter on 25.10.2016, the petitioner
submitted the attestation form, in which factum of prosecution for the criminal
offence was not disclosed.
16. The purpose of asking to the successful candidate to submit attestation
/verification form or affidavit supplying certain information particularly in respect
of involvement in criminal case is to consider the information for the purpose of
taking a decision that the aspirant is fit for employment or not. The candidate who
was involved in criminal case prosecuted and was acquitted during the process of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16247
11 WP-9065-2025
appointment by extending the benefit of doubt ought to have disclosed the same in
the attestation form. In the present matter, there is no material before this Court to
take a contrary view to the order passed by learned Tribunal as well as the
appointing authority which are based on due appreciation of facts and
circumstances of the case, wherein it was recorded that the petitioner had
suppressed material information sought by the employer as to whether he had ever
been prosecuted or not. The question is not whether that petitioner is suitable for
the post or not. The issue of obtaining of appointment by misrepresentation is
material, the case registered against the petitioner was involving moral turpitude
and he suppressed this information itself amount to moral turpitude. In fact, the
information sought by the respondent department was not duly disclosed in the
attestation form and therefore, the decision taken by the appointing authority to
refuse the appointment to the petitioner is just and proper.
1 7 . There is no infirmity in the order passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal and there is no circumstance available in the present matter to interfere in
the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. Consequently, the present petition
fails, admission declined. Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE JUDGE
Akm
