Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Suraj Dayanand More vs Posts on 4 May, 2026
1
O.A. No. 670/2021
Central Administrative Tribunal
Mumbai Bench, Mumbai
Original Application No. 670/2021
Order reserved on: 02/04/2026
Date of order: 04/05/2026
Coram :
Hon'ble Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
Suraj Dayanand More,
son of Dayanand Govind More, Age 30
years, Working as Postman, Department of
post (Madhvi S.O.) Dadar East Division,
Mumbai R/at S.R. No. 213/2 Gurudatta
colony, Bhekrai Nagar
Phursungi Pune-412 308
Mobile No.: 9028563009
Email id: [email protected]
.....Applicant
(By Adv: Shri Vishal Shirke)
Versus
1. The Union of India
Through The Chief Postmaster General,
Maharashtra Circle, GPO,
Mumbai 400 001
VIJAY Digitally signed
KUMAR by VIJAY
VERMA KUMAR VERMA
2
O.A. No. 670/2021
2. The Post Master General,
Mumbai Region,
GPO, Mumbai 400 001
3. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Mumbai East Division,
3rd floor, Dadar Post Office Building,
Mumbai 400 014
.... Respondents
(By Adv: Mrs. N.V. Masurkar)
ORDER
Per: Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant seeking therein the following reliefs:
"a. This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the records of the case from the Respondents and after examining the same quash and set aside the impugned order dated 27.09.2021 with all consequential benefits.
b. This Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to hold and declare that the appointment of the Applicant on the post of Postman is perfectly legal and valid.
VIJAY KUMAR Digitally signed by VIJAY c. Costs of the application be provided for.
VERMA KUMAR VERMA 3 O.A. No. 670/2021 d. Any other and further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal
deems fit in the nature and circumstances of the case be passed."
2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant in the present Original Application, are that the Applicant belongs to SC category and he possesses qualification of M.Com. on 24.01.2015. The respondents published advertisement for recruitment inter alia for the post of Postman, MailGuard, MTS etc. Accordingly, the applicant applied in pursuance of the said advertisement. Thereafter, written examination was conducted through an outside agency for the post of Postman on 29.03.2015. The Applicant appeared in the said written test. The Respondents thereafter published result dated 21.03.2016. The name of the Applicant figured in the list of successful candidates. It is pertinent to note that the Applicant was quite high in the merit list and therefore, he was selected under the UR category. The Applicant was accordingly asked to present himself for document verification and other pre-appointment VIJAY KUMAR Digitally signed by VIJAY formalities vide letter dated 01.04.2016. The Applicant VERMA KUMAR VERMA 4 O.A. No. 670/2021 accordingly presented himself for document verification and other pre-appointment formalities on 12.04.2016. Thereafter, on 13.04.2016 medical examination was conducted. Thereafter, only formal order of appointment to the applicant was remained to be issued. 2.1. The applicant was waiting patiently for finalization of selection process and the issuance of the appointment order. However, in the midst of issuance of such appointment orders, certain allegations of irregularities/malpractices committed by certain candidates were brought to the knowledge of the Respondents. As a result, the Respondents decided to cancel the examination process and also the issuance of further appointment orders. On the basis of an internal report showing the malpractices in the examinations, the Respondents took a decision dated 26.11.2016 to cancel the examinations and hold fresh examinations and to terminate the services of the appointed candidates.
2.2. The aforesaid action was challenged by the applicant VIJAY KUMAR Digitally signed by VIJAY by filing a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of VERMA KUMAR VERMA 5 O.A. No. 670/2021 Bombay High Court at Aurangabad Bench in 2016. The said Writ Petitions was allowed on 03.05.2019 by setting aside the decision of the Respondents to cancel the examination process. The Hon'ble High Court also directed the Respondents to complete the selection process within two months. The said order was challenged by the Department of Posts be preferring SLP (C) No. 22969-22976/2019 which was dismissed on 03.12.2020.
2.3. It is stated that in the aforesaid manner, the recruitment that was initiated in the year 2015 was not finalized and the fate of the applicant along with other candidates hanged in balance for a period of long five years. The applicant was unemployed during the said period from year 2015 to 2021 and was facing a severe financial challenge while waiting for the outcome of the litigation and his subsequent appointment. Therefore, he started doing odd jobs to meet ends. The Applicant during the Diwali festival in the year 2016 had set up a stall of fireworks in order to support his family financially. The Applicant was unaware that permission needed to be taken from the VIJAY Digitally signed KUMAR by VIJAY VERMA KUMAR VERMA appropriate authority for sale of fire crackers under the 6 O.A. No. 670/2021 Bombay Police Act, 1951. Unfortunately, on 29.01.2016, the Applicant was apprehended by the Hadapsar Police Station, Pune for selling firecrackers without a license. The Hadapsar Police Station therefore registered a complaint under sections 33(1)(h) & 131 of Bombay Police Act, 1951. The Applicant was thereafter presented before the Lashkar Court Pune, where he was imposed a fine of Rs. 300. 2.4. It is stated that after the dismissal of the SLP filed by the Department of Posts, the Respondents finally resumed. The Respondent No. 3, thereafter issued letter dated 03.02.2021 to the Applicant informing that he was provisionally selected for appointment as Postman. The Applicant was directed to present himself for completion of pre-appointment formalities within three days along with documents such as character certificate, proof of date of birth, Caste Certificate etc. The Applicant accordingly presented himself for completion of pre-appointment formalities on 12.02.2021. Thereafter, the Applicant was provisionally appointed on the post of Postman vide order dated 19.02.2021 and joined his duties at Mandvi Post VIJAY Digitally signed KUMAR by VIJAY VERMA KUMAR VERMA Office, Mazjid Bunder on 23.02.2021..However, a notice 7 O.A. No. 670/2021 dated 27.09.2019 was issued to the applicant informing that he had answered "NO" to all options related to arrest, prosecution, detention and fine by court of law, convicted by court of law etc. in his attestation form dated 11.02.2021. It was informed that upon character verification request sent to Commissioner of Police, it was informed that a case was registered against the applicant on 29.10.2016 under the provisions of Bombay Police Act and the applicant was fined Rs. 300 on 10.11.2016 by the Lashkar Court and said fact was not disclosed by the applicant in his attestation form. Therefore, his services shall be terminated with effect from the date of expiry of period of one month from the date on which notice dated 27.09.2021 was served to the applicant. 2.5. The aforesaid order is challenged by the applicant on the grounds that the respondents have directly terminated the services of the applicant without following the principles of natural justice. The applicant was not provided any opportunity of hearing to present his case before the respondents. Merely, on the basis of character verification report submitted by the Commissioner of Police, Pune, the VIJAY Digitally signed KUMAR by VIJAY VERMA KUMAR VERMA respondents proceeded to take extreme steps to terminate 8 O.A. No. 670/2021 the service of the applicant. It is submitted that Sections 33 (1) (h) and 131 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 by the Hadapsar Police Station, Pune and do not involve an aspect of moral turpitude or a blot on the character of an individual. There is no FIR registered against the applicant and there is therefore no question of charge sheet or criminal proceedings pending against the applicant. The applicant has not been arrested. As such, the offence is not at all heinous in nature. Moreover, the duties of the Applicant are that of a Postman and therefore such a petty offence could not render him incapable of performing his duties. 2.6. It is further submitted that all the formalities of the Applicant were already completed in the year 2016 itself and the issue of suppression of imposition of fine would not have arisen had the Respondents concluded the said selection process in the year 2016 itself. It is further submitted that said offence is non cognizable and as such is quite petty such as motor vehicle offences like jumping of signal, parking in no parking area, non-use of seat belt etc. The said offences involve penalty of payment of fine.
VIJAY Digitally signed KUMAR by VIJAY VERMA KUMAR VERMA 9 O.A. No. 670/2021
2.7. It is submitted that the impugned order is also in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of Inia V/s Avtar Singh (2016) 8 SCC 471 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically clarified that for the petty offences committed at young age and even if conviction is recorded the same deserves to be condoned ignoring the fact of suppression or false information. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its second decision in the case of Avtar Singh had directed the Respondents of the said case i.e. appointing authority to consider afresh, the case of the Appellant and pass speaking orders thereon.
2.8. It is further submitted that the Applicant is the sole bread winner of the family consisting of old aged father and mother, who are totally dependent on him. Terminating the services of the Applicant at this stage would severely affect the entire family. The punishment of termination of service for suppression of such a petty offence is too harsh. Therefore, after taking holistic view in the matter it is VIJAY necessary to pardon the lapse as it will certainly not effect Digitally signed KUMAR by VIJAY VERMA KUMAR VERMA the service particulars of the Applicant in any manner. 10 O.A. No. 670/2021 2.9. It is further submitted that the Respondents ought to have appreciated that the post for which the Applicant was seeking appointment was a lower post of Postman which is not a sensitive post. Even if the Applicant's case was considered to be that of willful suppression, considering the nature of duties expected from the Applicant, the same would not be impacted by the said suppression. The offence committed by the Applicant cannot be said to be grave, heinous or one which would have an impact on the nature of duties.
2.10. It is further submitted that the Applicant holds the qualification of M. Com. Moreover, the Applicant has secured a very high rank in the selection process due to which he has been considered in the UR category. Thus, it will be a travesty if a candidate of such high merit is thrown out of service on the ground that he had failed to mention the fact of a petty offence being registered against him on account of which he was imposed with the punishment of payment of fine of Rs. 300 only. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid facts and grounds the applicant has prayed for quashment VIJAY Digitally signed KUMAR by VIJAY VERMA KUMAR VERMA of impugned order with all consequential demands. 11 O.A. No. 670/2021
3. After notice, the official respondents have filed reply and contested the Original Application. It is stated that applicant who is M.Com. by qualification was provisionally appointed as a postman. During the pre-appointment formalities, applicant filled up an Attestation Form dated 11.02.2021 wherein Para No. 15(i) (a) to (g), applicant has answered as 'NO' to all questions where it is questioned that whether he was prosecuted and whether he has been fined by a Court of Law and whether he has been convicted and to Para No. 15 (ii) of it he was required to give full particulars of the case /fine/ conviction/punishment etc if answer is yes applicant has kept it blank and thus made false declaration. It may be noted that the requirement of the Attestation form in the present case was "prosecution", "ever been fined by court of law" and "ever been convicted by a court of Law for any offence". Further in the beginning of said Attestation Form under caption WARNING point no. 3, it is clearly mentioned that 'If, the fact that false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form comes to notice at any VIJAY Digitally signed KUMAR VERMA by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA time during the service of a person, his service would be 12 O.A. No. 670/2021 liable to be terminated and Note to and 15 again high lighted to see "Warning" at the top of attestation form to emphasize the seriousness on the effect of suppression of any factual information and giving false factual information. 3.1. Further it is stated that the said Attestation Form of the applicant was forwarded to the District Collector, Pune on 05.07.2021 with copy to the Commissioner of Police (Pune), for verification of his character & Antecedents. The Police Inspector, SB-II, O/o Commissioner of Police, Pune City vide his letter No. SB/VERI/GP/1348/2021 dated 13.08.2021 informed that 'a case was registered against Shri Suraj D More at Hadapsar Police Station vide Regn. No. 471/2016 dated 29.10.2016 U/S 33(1)(H), 131 of B. P. Act and he was fined with Rs. 300/- on 10.11.2016 by the Lashkar Court, Pune which has been paid by him in the Court. The above said fact was not disclosed by the applicant in his Attestation Form dated 11.02.2021. While filing up Para No. 15(i) (a) to (g) of Attestation Form, applicant has answered as 'NO' to all questions where it is questioned that whether he was fined by a Court of Law. Thus applicant VIJAY Digitally signed KUMAR by VIJAY VERMA KUMAR VERMA committed suppressed factual information that a material 13 O.A. No. 670/2021 information that he was fined by Court and giving false information about the same that he was never punished and further making false declaration about the same at the end of the Attestation form. It is pertinent to mention here that while filling up the Attestation form by the applicant on 11.02.2021, the applicant had read and mentioned in his own handwriting that the information filled by him is correct and he is fully aware that by providing false information or suppressing material information while filling up the Attestation Form, the Authority has full right to terminate his appointment letter and he is also liable for appropriate Criminal/Civil action as a consequence. 3.2. It is further submitted that in present case the applicant suppressed the fact that a case was registered against him at Hadapsar Police station vide Reg No. 471/2016 U/S of Bombay Police Act 33(1) (H), 131 dated 29.10.2016 and Hon'ble J.M.F.C. Lashkar Court, Pune had imposed fine of Rs. 300/- on account of being accused in criminal case No. 3084 of 2016 as accused 10.11.2016 and also furnished false information in that regard.
VIJAY Digitally signed KUMAR by VIJAY VERMA KUMAR VERMA 14 O.A. No. 670/2021
3.3. It is submitted that applicant was provisionally appointed as Postman vide Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices Mumbai East Division memo No. SSPE/BII/Direct Rectt/Pman/Aptt/SDM/2021 dated 19.02.2021. In the appointment letter, it is clearly mentioned that the provisional appointment is subject to satisfactory verification of prescribed educational qualification, Police Verification, Community Certificate and other certificates/documents wherever prescribed. If the work, conduct and character of the candidate is not satisfactory, his services will be terminated at any time without assigning any reasons by a notice of one month in advance or forthwith by payment of a month pay.
3.4. It is submitted that selling fire crackers is a sporadic business but the same deals with explosive substances thereby cause of risk to public life and therefore the same is made punishable with imprisonment or fine for which Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act gives power to the Commissioner of Police, to make rules or regulations for traffic for preservation of order in public places, etc and VIJAY Digitally signed KUMAR by VIJAY VERMA KUMAR VERMA 15 O.A. No. 670/2021 Section 33(1)(h) and section 131 the Bombay Police Act reads as follows:
(h) licensing, controlling or, in order to prevent the obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage of the residents or passengers in the vicinity, prohibiting the carrying in streets and public places of gunpowder or any other explosive substances;
131. Penalty for contravening rules. etc., under Sec. 33. [ 3 [Save as provided in Sec. 131-A, whoever]- (a) contravenes any rules or order made under Sec. 33 (a) shall, on conviction be punished] (i) if the rule or order under which the said license was issued was made under Cls. (d), (g), (h), (i), sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of Cl. (r) or C1. (u) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 35, for a with imprisonment term, which may extend to eight days or with fine which may extend to One thousand two hundred and fifty rupees or with both;
3.5. It is further submitted that Regulation under the Bombay Police Act, 1951 have been framed in the interest of public safety. It is submitted by me that one of the maxims of equity is that equity follows the law'. If the law is clear, no notions of equity can substitute the same. 3.6. It is submitted that a candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service. The attestation form duly stated that an employee could be terminated without notice, if he furnishes false information, the employee is estopped from objecting to termination whereas one month's notice as VIJAY Digitally signed KUMAR VERMA by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA per Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules 965 is duly 16 O.A. No. 670/2021 given in the matter to applicant. There is discretion with the employer to terminate the services. Character, conduct and antecedents do have some impact on the nature of employment and there has to be due consideration of said aspects which is done in the instant case. The action in the present matter is taken for non-disclosure of specific information asked for. The case of Avtar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 July, 2016, (2016) 8 SCC 47 wherein it is held that 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 and such specific information asked for by clause 15(i) and 15(ii) of attestation verification form is not disclosed by the applicant in the present case.
15. As the applicant comes under the purview of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules 1965, there is no other provision available in the Temporary Service Rules except issue of Notice of Termination with one month notice period and without mentioning any reason. In the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 there is no provision to make inquiry of VIJAY Digitally signed KUMAR VERMA by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA the case. As per Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules 17 O.A. No. 670/2021 1965, the services of a Temporary Govt. servant shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing by the Appointing Authority to the Govt. servant and the period of such notice shall be one month. Accordingly respondent office issued Notice of Termination of Service vide memo No. FI/Notice/Temporary Service/SDM/ 2021-22 dated 27.09.2021.
3.7. It is stated that the applicant has not submitted any appeal or petition to any higher authority against the notice of termination and therefore, the O.A. is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-exhausting state of the agent. Therefore, on the basis of reply, the official respondents have prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.
4. Thereafter, rejoinder and sur rejoinder were filed by the applicant and the respondents, respectively, explaining and elaborating their stands.
5. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
VIJAY Digitally signed KUMAR by VIJAY VERMA KUMAR VERMA 18 O.A. No. 670/2021
6. Learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Vishal Shirke, vehemently argued that the applicant participated in the selection process issued in the year 2015 for the post of Postman and all pre-appointment formalities were completed up to 13.04.2016. However, on the ground of some irregularities found in the selection process, the department itself has taken a decision to cancel the selection process which was subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Nagpur Bench and the writ petitions filed by the candidates were allowed against which SLP were filed by the respondent department. However, same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 03.12.2020.
7. Thereafter, again the applicant was called upon for certain formalities and thereafter appointment order was issued on 19.02.2021 for the post of postman from on which he is joined on 23.02.2021. Thereafter, suddenly and shockingly by impugned communication dated 27.09.2021 it was informed that there was a suppression of material fact in respect of the case in which fine was imposed upon the VIJAY Digitally signed KUMAR by VIJAY VERMA KUMAR VERMA applicant, registered under the Bombay Police Act and 19 O.A. No. 670/2021 therefore, it is informed that the services of the applicant shall be terminated after expiry of period of one month from the notice dated 27.09.2021. It is vehemently argued that prior to issuance of impugned notice dated 27.09.2021 no opportunity of hearing was given to the applicant and therefore, the impugned action is contrary to the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside.
8. It is further contended that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Avtaar Singh (supra) (a three judges Bench) has categorically considered the issue of suppression of facts by laying down certain guidelines. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically clarified that for petty offences committed in young age, and even if conviction is recorded, the same deserves to be condoned, ignoring the fact of suppression or false information.
9. In the original application, the applicant has specifically mentioned the circumstances in which, due to delay in finalization of the selection process which was started in the year 2015, and was subjected to litigation VIJAY KUMAR Digitally signed by VIJAY between 2015 to 2021, the Applicant was constrained to VERMA KUMAR VERMA 20 O.A. No. 670/2021 earn for maintaining himself and his family members, by opening of the shop of firecrackers during Diwali which was one of such circumstances. The imposition of fine was clearly for a petty offence, such as offence under motor vehicle act, for jumping of signal from a parking in a no parking area, and non-use of seat belts, etc. Therefore, while issuing the impugned communication, taking the harsh step of terminating the services is arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair.
10. During course of the argument, the learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court as under:
a. Sukdeb Mandal Vs. UOI & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC online Cal 2570 b. Pawan Kuamr Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1996) 4 SCC 17 c. Mohammed Imran Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2019) 17 SCC 696 d. UOI Vs. M.L. Capoor (Beg J.) reported in (1973) 2 SCC 836 e. E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
reported in (1974) 4 SCC 3 f. Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election VIJAY Digitally signed KUMAR by VIJAY VERMA KUMAR VERMA Commissioner reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 21 O.A. No. 670/2021
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the official respondents, on the basis of reply, vehemently argued that suppression of the imposition of fine by the competent court is not under dispute. It is submitted that when the prescribed form provides a particular facts to be informed by the candidate, then such information was required to be submitted by the applicant.
12. It is further submitted that since the applicant was on probation and therefore taking note of the provisions of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rule 1965, notice of termination was rightly issued to the applicant. It is submitted that, even in case of Avatar Singh (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has left it to the discretion of the employer, to continue the applicant or terminate his service, when there is a suppression of material facts, or to consider judgement of acquittal in given case. During the course of the argument, the learned counsel for the respondents heavily relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Satish Chandra Yadav VIJAY Digitally signed v. Union of India and others, reported in 2022 Livelaw KUMAR by VIJAY VERMA KUMAR VERMA 22 O.A. No. 670/2021 (SC) 798 and submit that this judgement has taken note of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Avatar Singh (supra) and other leading judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, delivered in prior point of time, and dismissed the cases of the employees, holding that, it was a deliberate attempt on part of the said employee, to withhold the relevant information, and it is this provision, which has led to the termination of service during the probation and therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid judgment, no relief can be granted to the employee.
13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties perusal of the records, it is not in dispute that the respondent department started the selection process, in the year 2015, and after going through the selection process, pre-appointment formalities so far as it relates to applicant is concerned, was completed on 13th April 2016, and thereafter due to litigation, before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench, and before the Hon'ble Supreme Court at the instance of department, the said selection process was not finalized, till the order passed by the Hon'ble VIJAY Digitally signed KUMAR by VIJAY VERMA KUMAR VERMA Supreme Court on 30.12.2020 only thereafter, the process 23 O.A. No. 670/2021 was again started and applicant was appointed by the order dated 19.02.2021. It is true that during the process of character verification, the suppression of registration of case under the Bombay Police Act, was brought to the notice by the police department to the respondents. Taking note of the aforesaid suppression, the impugned notice dated 27.09.2021, was issued to the applicant.
14. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) on the basis of which it is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that no relief can be granted to the applicant.
15. In later judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ravindra Kumar versus the state of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in 2024 (5) SCC 264, was pleased to take note of all earlier landmark judgments held as under, and relevant paragraphs of the said judgments, are reproduced:
VIJAY Digitally signed KUMAR by VIJAY VERMA KUMAR VERMA 24 O.A. No. 670/2021 "22. The law on this issue is settled by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] . Paras 34, 35, 36 and 38, which sets out the conclusions, are extracted hereinbelow : (SCC pp. 506-508) "34. No doubt about it that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess suitability and it is open to employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects.
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.
36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects.
***
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 VIJAY KUMAR Digitally signed by VIJAY should be no suppression or false mention of VERMA KUMAR VERMA required information.25 O.A. No. 670/2021
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 VIJAY Digitally signed declared in character verification form regarding KUMAR by VIJAY VERMA KUMAR VERMA pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, 26 O.A. No. 670/2021 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, [Ed. : The matter between two asterisks has been emphasised in original.] holding [Ed. :
The matter between two asterisks has been emphasised in original.] 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."
(emphasis supplied)
23. As would be clear from Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC VIJAY Digitally signed (L&S) 425] , it has been clearly laid down that though a KUMAR VERMA by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment, he or she has a right 27 O.A. No. 670/2021 not to be dealt with arbitrarily. The exercise of power has to be in a reasonable manner with objectivity and having due regard to the facts. In short, the ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria after due consideration of all relevant aspects.
24.Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] also noticed the judgment in Commr. of Police v. Sandeep Kumar [Commr. of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 426 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 734] . In Sandeep Kumar [Commr. of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 426 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 734] , this Court set out the story of the character "Jean Valjean" in Victor Hugo's novel Les Miserables, where the character was branded as a thief for stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family. It also discussed the classic judgment of Lord Denning in Morris v. Crown Office [Morris v. Crown Office, (1970) 2 QB 114 : (1970) 2 WLR 792 (CA)] and concluded as follows : (Sandeep Kumar case [Commr. of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 426 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 734] , SCC pp. 646-47, paras 10-12) "10. ... In our opinion, we should display the same wisdom as displayed by Lord Denning.
11. As already observed above, youth often commits indiscretions, which are often condoned.
12. It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Sections 325/34IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter."
25. Thereafter, in Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] dealing with Sandeep Kumar [Commr. of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 426 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 734] , this Court observed as under : (Avtar Singh case [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 :
VIJAY Digitally signed (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] , SCC p. 500, para 24) KUMAR by VIJAY VERMA KUMAR VERMA 28 O.A. No. 670/2021 "24. ... This Court has observed that suppression related to a case when the age of Sandeep Kumar was about 20 years. He was young and at such age people often commit indiscretions and such indiscretions may often be condoned. The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him a criminal all his life.
In Morris v. Crown Office [Morris v. Crown Office, (1970) 2 QB 114 : (1970) 2 WLR 792 (CA)] , the observations made were that young people are no ordinary criminals. There is no violence, dishonesty or vice in them. They were trying to preserve the Welsh language. Though they have done wrong but we must show mercy on them and they were permitted to go back to their studies, to their parents and continue the good course."
26. In Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. [Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., (2011) 14 SCC 709 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 773] , another case noticed and discussed in Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] arising out of near identical facts and construing a similar clause in the verification form, this Court, while granting relief, held as follows : (Ram Kumar case [Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., (2011) 14 SCC 709 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 773] , SCC pp. 711-13, paras 9, 12-14 and 17) "9. We have carefully read the Government Order dated 28-4-1958 on the subject "Verification of the character and antecedents of government servants before their first appointment" and it is stated in the Government Order that the Governor has been pleased to lay down the following instructions in supersession of all the previous orders:
'The rule regarding character of candidate for appointment under the State Government shall continue to be as follows:
The character of a candidate for direct appointment must be such as to render him suitable in all respects for employment in the service or post to which he is to be appointed. It would be the duty of the appointing authority to satisfy itself on this point.' ***
12. On a reading of the order dated 18-7-2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate it would show that the sole witness examined before the VIJAY Digitally signed court, PW 1, Mr Akhilesh Kumar, had deposed KUMAR by VIJAY VERMA KUMAR VERMA before the court that on 2-12-2000 at 4.00 p.m. children were quarrelling and at that time the 29 O.A. No. 670/2021 appellant, Shailendra and Ajay Kumar amongst other neighbours had reached there and someone from the crowd hurled abuses and in the scuffle Akhilesh Kumar got injured when he fell and his head hit a brick platform and that he was not beaten by the accused persons by any sharp weapon. In the absence of any other witness against the appellant, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 323/34/504IPC.
On these facts, it was not at all possible for the appointing authority to take a view that the appellant was not suitable for appointment to the post of a police constable.
13. The order dated 18-7-2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had been sent along with the report dated 15-1-2007 of Jaswant Nagar Police Station to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, but it appears from the order dated 8-8-2007 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, that he has not gone into the question as to whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to service or to the post of constable in which he was appointed and he has only held that the selection of the appellant was illegal and irregular because he did not furnish in his affidavit in the pro forma of verification roll that a criminal case has been registered against him.
14. As has been stated in the instructions in the Government Order dated 28-4-1958, it was the duty of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, as the appointing authority, to satisfy himself on the point as to whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of a constable, with reference to the nature of suppression and nature of the criminal case. Instead of considering whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of male constable, the appointing authority has mechanically held that his selection was irregular and illegal because the appellant had furnished an affidavit stating the facts incorrectly at the time of recruitment.
***
17. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the order [Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. Writ-A No. 40674 of 2007, order dated 30- 8-2007 (All)] of the learned Single Judge and the impugned order [Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., 2009 SCC OnLine All 2622] of the Division Bench and allow the writ petition of the appellant and VIJAY Digitally signed quash the order dated 8-8-2007 of the Senior KUMAR by VIJAY VERMA KUMAR VERMA Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. The appellant will be taken back in service within a 30 O.A. No. 670/2021 period of two months from today but he will not be entitled to any back wages for the period he has remained out of service. There shall be no order as to costs."
(emphasis in original) Ram Kumar [Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., (2011) 14 SCC 709 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 773] was also a case of cancellation of selection to the post of Constable.
27. More recently in Pawan Kumar v. Union of India [Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 317] , involving appointment to the post of Constable in Railway Protection Force and setting aside the order of discharge due to alleged suppression in the verification form, this Court, after noticing Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] held as under : (Pawan Kumar case [Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 317] , SCC paras 11, 13 & 20) "11. This cannot be disputed that the candidate who intends to participate in the selection process is always required to furnish correct information relating to his character and antecedents in the verification/attestation form before and after induction into service. It is also equally true that the person who has suppressed the material information or has made false declaration indeed has no unfettered right of seeking appointment or continuity in service, but at least has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to be judiciously exercised by the competent authority in a reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts of the case on hand. It goes without saying that the yardstick/standard which has to be applied with regard to adjudging suitability of the incumbent always depends upon the nature of post, nature of duties, effect of suppression over suitability to be considered by the authority on due diligence of various aspects but no hard and fast rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard.
***
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 VIJAY KUMAR Digitally signed by VIJAY information involving in a criminal case, if any, is VERMA KUMAR VERMA left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to 31 O.A. No. 670/2021 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.
***
20. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 17-11-2015 [Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14648] and the order of discharge dated 24-4- 2015 and dated 23-12-2021 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant in service on the post of Constable on which he was selected pursuant to his participation in reference to Employment Notice No. 1/2011 dated 27-2-2011. We make it clear that the appellant will not be entitled for the arrears of salary for the period during which he has not served the force and at the same time he will be entitled for all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits, etc. Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of one month from today. No costs."
28. In Mohd. Imran v. State of Maharashtra [Mohd. Imran v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 17 SCC 696] , no doubt, a case where a candidate made the disclosure of criminal case, this Court speaking through Navin Sinha, J. made the following telling observation which resonates with the hard realities of everyday existence : (SCC p. 698, para
5) "5. Employment opportunities are 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 may apply to other services, may not be the same for a judicial service. But there cannot be any mechanical or rhetorical VIJAY Digitally signed incantation of moral turpitude, to deny KUMAR by VIJAY VERMA KUMAR VERMA appointment in judicial service simpliciter. Much will depend on the facts of a case. Every 32 O.A. No. 670/2021 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, an albatross around the neck of the candidate, may not always constitute justice. Much will, however depend on the fact situation of a case."
29. We have also kept in mind the recent judgment of this Court in Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India [Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, (2023) 7 SCC 536 : (2023) 2 SCC (L&S) 43] and the broad principles set out by this Court in para 93, especially, paras 93.1, 93.3 and 93.7. Even the broad principles set out therein recognise that each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by the public employer concerned and the Court is obliged to examine whether the procedure of enquiry adopted by the authority concerned was fair and reasonable. Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 :
(2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] in para 38.2 has held that while passing the order of cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. Further, in para 38.4.3 of Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] the principle that, in case of suppression or false information of involvement of criminal case, where acquittal has already been recorded, the employer can still consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.
30. We have read and understood the broad principles laid down in Satish Chandra Yadav [Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, (2023) 7 SCC 536 : (2023) 2 SCC (L&S) 43] with the following crucial paragraph in Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 :
(2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] : (SCC pp. 506-507, para 35) "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 VIJAY KUMAR Digitally signed by VIJAY continuity in service but he has a right not to be VERMA KUMAR VERMA dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to 33 O.A. No. 670/2021 be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases."
31. We have also examined the judgment in State of T.N. v. J. Raghunees [State of T.N. v. J. Raghunees, (2023) 16 SCC 647 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1379] and we find that the case of the appellant is more aligned with the facts in the judgment of this Court in Pawan Kumar [Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 317] , Sandeep Kumar [Commr. of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 426 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 734] and Ram Kumar [Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., (2011) 14 SCC 709 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 773] . Hence, we find that the judgment in J. Raghunees [State of T.N. v. J. Raghunees, (2023) 16 SCC 647 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1379] is clearly distinguishable.
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."
16. In the present case, it has come on the record that the applicant belongs to SC category and was selected under Unreserved category on the basis of higher marks obtained in the selection process. Selection process was completed after five years of delay and the appointment order to the applicant was issued on 19.02.2021. During this period, for survival the applicant was compelled to do business of VIJAY Digitally signed KUMAR VERMA by VIJAY KUMAR VERMA firecrackers shop for limited period on the occasion of Diwali. 34 O.A. No. 670/2021
In respect of the same, for violating Bombay Police Act, 1951, a fine of Rs. 300/- was imposed upon the applicant.
17. Aforesaid, all the aspects are required to be considered by the respondents in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar (supra). It is pertinent to mention that on 18.10.2021 while issuing notices to the respondents, operation of notice dated 27.09.2.021 was stayed and interim relief is continuing till date. Under these circumstances, the following directions are issued:
a. The applicant is directed to file detailed and comprehensive representation in respect of notice dated 27.09.2021 before the competent authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
b. Thereafter, the competent authority is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law and till then Interim relief will continue.
VIJAY Digitally signed KUMAR by VIJAY VERMA KUMAR VERMA 35 O.A. No. 670/2021
18. With the aforesaid directions, the present Original Application is disposed of. Pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Umesh Gajankush) (Shri Krishna)
Member (J) Member (A)
~Vv~
VIJAY Digitally signed
KUMAR by VIJAY
VERMA KUMAR VERMA