Monu vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 10 February, 2026

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              WP(C ) No.15786 of 2023

          MONU                                ....            Petitioner
                                                   Mr K.A. Guru, Adv.

                                       -versus-

          Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,        ....         Opposite Parties
          BBSR & Others                                  Mr. S. Mohanty, Adv.



                           COROM:
     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

                                     ORDER

10.02.2026 Order No

3. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the impugned communication issued by the Opp.Party-Corporation on 15.04.2023 under Anenxure-6. Vide the said communication, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of appointment as against the post of Technical Attendant-I in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Pipeline Divn), South-Eastern Region Pipelines, against Advertisement No.PL/HR/ESTB/RECT-2022 dated 24.01.2022 was not considered on the ground of pendency of a Criminal Proceeding for the offence under Sections 147/149/323/341/506 of the Indian Penal Code in the State of Haryana.

// 2 //

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner placing reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh V. Union of India & Others, AIR 2016 S.C. 3598, contended that the ground on which Petitioner's candidature has been rejected needs a re-consideration. Para-30 of the judgment reads as follows:

30. 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

(1) Information given to the employer by la candidate as to conviction, acquittal or ar-rest, 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.

(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 he case, if any, while giving such information.

(3) The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/ rules, applicable to the employer, at the time suppressed of taking the decision.

(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-

(a) 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.

// 3 //

(b) Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.

(c) 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.

(5) In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case the employer still has the right to con-sider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

(6) In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employers, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.

(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 ap propriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a per son against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.

(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 de cision after considering the seriousness of the crime.

(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.

(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

// 4 //

same can be considered in an objective manner while ad-dressing 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.

(11) Before a person is held guilty of suppression veri or suggestion falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.

4.1. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner however fairly contended that the Criminal Proceeding is pending as on date. However, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Para-30(6) of the judgment, Petitioner's claim is required to be re-considered by Opp. Party No.1.

5. Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation on the other hand contended that selection process pursuant to the Advertisement issued under Annexure-2 has already been completed and as on the date of filing of the counter affidavit, there was no available vacancy. However, it is fairly contended that no further instruction is available with regard to creation of vacancy in the meantime.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, it is found that Petitioner's candidature was not considered because of the pendency of a Criminal Proceeding against him in the State of Haryana. Though it is not disputed that such a Criminal Proceeding is pending as on date, but this Court placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court so

// 5 //

cited supra, is of the view that claim of the Petitioner requires re-consideration by Opp. party No.1.

6.1. While holding so with quashing of the impugned rejection under Annexure-6, this Court directs Opp. party No.1 to take a fresh decision in the light of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh This Court directs Opp. party No.1 to pass a fresh order within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order and basing on such decision consequential action be taken, if any vacancy has arisen in the meantime and Petitioner is found otherwise eligible.

7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) sangita Judge

Reason: AUTHENTICAITON OF ORDER Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Feb-2026 17:00:48