Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Vivek Dahiya vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on 19 November, 2025
1- O.A. No. 938/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Original Application No.060/00938/2023
Pronounced on: 19.11.2025
Reserved on: 28.10.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
Vivek Dahiya (Aged 25 Years) S/O Jaibhagwan r/o Ward No. 3, Pipli
(12-R) Sonipat, Haryana-131402.
.... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Priaynshu Kamra and Mr. Vinod Kumar
Versus
1. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (Through Its Deputy
Commissioner/Director) Ministry Of Education (Department Of School
Education & Literacy) (Govt. Of India) Office At:- Regional Office, Bay
No. 26-27, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh-160030
2. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (Through Its Commissioner/Assistant
Commissioner/Director) An Autonomous Organization Under Ministry Of
Education (Department Of School Education & Literacy) (Govt. Of India)
Office At:- B-15, Institutional Area, Sector-62,Noida, District Gautam
Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-20130
3. Union Of India Through It Secretary/Commissioner Ministry Of
Education, Department Of School Education & Literacy Through Its
Secretary Office At:-301-C, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi
Digitally
signed by 4. Principal Jawahar Navodaya Vidyala, Kothipura, Tehsil Sadra, District
MAMTA
WADHWA Bilaspur (Himachal Pradesh-177040).
... .Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC
2- O.A. No. 938/2023
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
i) Issue an direction/order to quash and set-aside the order/Notice vide Ref. No. 942/NVS/RO-
CHD/ESTT(NT)/2022/4270-71 passed 16.08.2023 by the respondents and;
ii) Issue an order or direction to the respondents not to proceed with any further actions pursuant to the aforesaid impugned Order/Notice vide Ref. No. 942 /NVS/RO- CHD/ESTT(NT)/2022/4270-71 on dated 16.08.2023.
2. The facts of the case in brief, as pleaded, are that the applicant is a 25-year-old, law-abiding, and career-oriented young student, who has completed his 12th standard and has been preparing for competitive examinations for the past five years. In response to the Recruitment Drive 2021-2022 issued by the respondents through a newspaper notification dated 12.01.2022 for various posts under the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, the applicant applied for the post of Junior Secretariat Assistant (JNV Cadre), fulfilling all the required eligibility criteria. After successfully clearing the written test, skill (typing) test, Digitally and medical examination, the applicant secured Rank 15 in the UR signed by MAMTA WADHWA category with a score of 112.493. Consequently, the respondents issued an appointment letter dated 27.05.2023, offering him the said post and directing him to report for duty at Jawahar Navodaya 3- O.A. No. 938/2023 Vidyalaya, Kothipura, District Bilaspur (Himachal Pradesh) on or before 15 June 2023.
3. In compliance, the petitioner submitted all required attestation documents, including a disclosure regarding a pending criminal case (FIR No. 0111/2018 under Section 202 IPC, P.S. Kharkhoda, District Sonipat), along with copies of the FIR, charge sheet, and charge order. Despite this disclosure, the respondents, upon becoming aware of the pending case, issued an order dated 16.08.2023 withdrawing the petitioner's candidature for the post of JNV Cadre, as per Order/Notice Ref. No. 942/NVS/RO-CHD/ESTT(NT)/2022/4270-71. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner contends that the withdrawal of his candidature is unjust and has caused him irreparable loss that cannot be compensated monetarily.
4. The applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 16.08.2023 passed by the respondents, contending that it is unsustainable in law as well as on facts. It has been submitted that the respondents failed to appreciate that in Case No. SC/623/2018 arising out of FIR No. 0111/2018, charge was framed against the applicant only under Section 202 of the Indian Penal Code, which carries a maximum punishment of six months' imprisonment or fine, and that he has no other criminal antecedents. The applicant asserted that the impugned order was passed in his absence and without any prior notice, thereby Digitally signed by MAMTA violating the principles of natural justice, as he was not afforded an WADHWA opportunity to be heard or to present his defense. The order, being vague, unreasonable, and passed in a hasty and mechanical manner, is contrary to the doctrine of audi alteram partem. It has been further 4- O.A. No. 938/2023 contended that the applicant had voluntarily disclosed the existence of the pending criminal case and submitted all relevant documents, including copies of the FIR and charge sheet, to the NVS, and hence, the respondents' allegation of suppression of material facts is baseless. The withdrawal of his candidature, therefore, is arbitrary and without due consideration of the minor nature of the alleged offence. In support of his case, the applicant relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India, SLP (Civil) No. 6009 of 2016 (Civil Appeal No. 3574 of 2022), wherein the Apex Court emphasized fair treatment and due consideration in matters involving candidates with pending criminal cases.
5. The respondents, in their reply, have submitted that the applicant was appointed as a Junior Secretariat Assistant (JNV Cadre), however, while filling up the application form, he intentionally and deliberately concealed the factum of registration of FIR No. 111 dated 13.03.2018, registered under Sections 120-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, involving offences of moral turpitude. It is stated that the applicant's arrest and trial in the said case are continuing, and his suppression of such material facts amounts to misrepresentation. The respondents further submitted that the appointment letter dated 27.05.2023 (Annexure A-1) was issued to the applicant following his selection, but the verification of Digitally character and antecedents is ordinarily conducted after the issuance of signed by MAMTA WADHWA the appointment letter. Attention is drawn to Clauses 14 and 15 of the appointment letter, which clearly stipulate that if any information furnished by the appointee is found false or any material fact suppressed, his services are liable to be terminated, and that the 5- O.A. No. 938/2023 appointment is subject to a satisfactory verification report by the District Magistrate, failing which the appointment would stand terminated.
6. The respondents contended that since the FIR No. 111 dated 13.03.2018, registered at Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, under Sections 120-B and 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, is still pending trial, therefore, the respondents rightly and legally issued the impugned order dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure A-2) withdrawing the candidature of the applicant. The respondents have also relied upon the detailed grounds mentioned in the impugned order, highlighting that the applicant, while filling his application form, failed to mention the criminal case pending against him and thereby suppressed material information. It was only in the attestation form that he disclosed his arrest and the existence of a pending criminal case, which was inconsistent with the earlier undertaking given by him at the time of application. The respondents assert that such concealment constitutes moral turpitude and misrepresentation, justifying the withdrawal of his appointment.
7. In support of their decision, the respondents have placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Kailash Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. [2020 (143) ALR 392], wherein, while referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Devendra Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand [2013 (9) SCC 363], it was held that suppression of information regarding a pending criminal case amounts Digitally signed by MAMTA to moral turpitude and renders the service liable to termination, even if WADHWA the person is later acquitted. Based on the above reasoning, the respondents maintain that the impugned order dated 16.08.2023 6- O.A. No. 938/2023 withdrawing the appointment of the applicant was passed rightly, in accordance with law, and cannot be assailed on any ground.
8. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating the contentions raised in the Original Application.
9. We have gone through the pleadings, perused the material available on record and considered the rival contentions of both the sides.
10. The issue for consideration for adjudication is as to whether the impugned withdrawal order dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure A-2) whereby the candidature of applicant against the post of Junior Secretariat Assistant (JNV cadre) has been withdrawn is sustainable in the eyes of law.
11. The undisputed facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed to the post of Junior Secretariat Assistant (JNV cadre) on the basis of direct recruitment under Recruitment drive 2021-22 vide appointment letter dated 27.05.2023 (Annexure A-1). During the process of appointment, the applicant was called for document verification on 15.02.2023 with the advice to bring bio data form duly filled in along with all original certificate/testimonial from class 10 th onwards vide communication dated 30.01.2023. Pursuance thereof, the applicant appeared for document verification on the date fixed i.e. Digitally signed by MAMTA 15.02.2023 at NVS, HQ, Noida and submitted bio data form along with WADHWA the undertaking that no legal and/or criminal case is pending against him before any court of law/investigating agency. It was also undertaken that the applicant had never been found guilty/convicted of 7- O.A. No. 938/2023 any offence or crime by the court of law in the past. The respondents assuming the undertaking to be true and correct issued the appointment letter dated 27.05.2023 with posting him at JNV, Kothipura, District Bilaspur with the direction to the Principal to verify the eligibility of applicant. Accordingly, the applicant reported to the Principal, JNV, Bilaspur on 14.06.2023 and submitted his joining report in pursuance to the appointment letter. The respondent no. 4, on perusal of relevant documents, found that the applicant was not eligible for the post, because he has suppressed the fact of involvement in a criminal case and pendency of the trial in the court of law, while filing bio-data form at the time of verification of documents and referred the matter to respondent no. 1. The applicant, for the first time, at the time of submission of attestation form on 10.06.2024 (Annexure R-4), disclosed that he was arrested and a case was pending against him. On the basis of involvement of applicant in FIR No. 111 dated 13.03.2018, the respondent no. 1 vide impugned order dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure A-
2) withdrew the offer of appointment for the post of JSA, issued to the applicant.
12. From the perusal of material available on record, we have noticed that the FIR No. 111 dated 13.03.2018 was registered at the Kharkhoda Police Station, Distt. Sonipat, against the accused persons namely Jagmale and Madam Yogesh, under sections 302, 120-B, 302 Digitally IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act. From the perusal of FIR, we noticed signed by MAMTA WADHWA that the applicant was not named in the aforesaid FIR. The police, after investigation, filed charge sheet against accused persons including applicant on 05.06.2018. Learned counsel for the applicant urged that the applicant was not named in the FIR and his name was cropped 8- O.A. No. 938/2023 during the course of investigation and he was granted bail by the police itself. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat framed charge against the applicant along with one Ajay only for the offence of 202 IPC. The Section 202 IPC is an offence for intentional omission to give information of offence by a person, who is bound to inform. The offence u/s 202 IPC, as defined is an offence by omission, not by action. The applicant was never charged for the offence of 302 IPC or Section 25 of the Arms Act by the Ld. Trial Court and the respondent no. 4 has withdrawn the candidature of the applicant stating that the criminal case under Section 120 B and 302 IPC read with Section 25 of Arms Act is pending against the applicant, which is factually incorrect. After trial proceedings, the applicant has been acquitted by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 18.09.2024 for the offence of 202 IPC. There is no dispute that the applicant has not disclosed details of the FIR, while furnishing undertaking on 13.02.2023.
13. Prior to the issuance of impugned withdrawal order (Annexure A-
2), the respondents have not afforded any opportunity to the applicant to provide status of the pending trial against him. The basis, made by the respondents, of withdrawal of candidature of the applicant is his involvement in FIR No. 111 for the offence under 120B, 302 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, which is wrong and contrary to the factual position as the learned Ld. Trial Court has framed charge of 202 Digitally IPC only against the applicant, which is punishable with imprisonment of signed by MAMTA WADHWA maximum of 06 months or with fine. Had the applicant been granted an opportunity to explain the position before the withdrawal of candidature, the applicant would have been provided the copy of charge framed by 9- O.A. No. 938/2023 the court on 21.08.2018 and the respondents would have arrived at a right conclusion. The offence as defined under Section 202 IPC is not heinous offence, it cast only legal obligation on the person to keep information of offence to the concerned authority. The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that a common man is always afraid of criminals and possess enough courage to risk the eyes of criminals and the applicant is innocent. Admittedly, the applicant has voluntarily disclosed the details of the pending case in his attestation form and attached all the relevant documents pertaining to the FIR submitted before the NVS authorities. Having regards to the nature of offence for which the applicant has faced trial and subsequently acquitted by the learned Trial court, the same is not of too grave nature that suppression of the same by the applicant may be a ground for withdrawal of his candidature. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while allowing the appeal, in the case of Pawan Kumar (supra) has held as under:-
"
"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 Digitally yardstick/standard which has to be applied with regard to signed by MAMTA adjudging suitability of the incumbent always depends upon the WADHWA 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.10- O.A. No. 938/2023
12. Earlier, there has been a conflict of opinion in the various decisions of Division Benches of this Court and at the stage when the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition under the impugned order dated 17th November, 2015, there were divergent views of this Court and that came to be later settled by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471. While summarizing the conclusion, this Court has laid down broad guidelines which has to be taken note of by the appointing/competent authority in dealing with the matters where there is a suppression of material information or disclosure of false information and after reconciling the earlier judgments succinctly summarized the conclusions as under:
"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.
37. The "McCarthyism" is antithesis to constitutional goal, chance of reformation has to be afforded to young offenders in suitable cases, interplay of reformative theory cannot be ruled out in toto nor can be generally applied but is one of the factors to be taken into consideration while exercising the power for cancelling candidature or discharging an employee from service.
Digitally signed by MAMTA 38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and WADHWA 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 11- O.A. No. 938/2023 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 Digitally case.
signed by MAMTA WADHWA 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.12- O.A. No. 938/2023
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."
13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What being 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. As discussed hereinabove, no opportunity of hearing was given to the applicant before issuance of impugned withdrawal order, Digitally therefore, after acquittal of the applicant vide order dated 18.09.2024, signed by MAMTA WADHWA the issue of withdrawal of candidature of the applicant requires re-
consideration by the competent authority in view of the decision of Pawan Kumar (supra). Accordingly the impugned order dated 16.08.2023 is set aside. The respondents are directed to re-consider 13- O.A. No. 938/2023 the candidature of the applicant in view of observations hereinabove as well as the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pawan Kumar (supra). The appropriate decision in this regard shall be taken by the respondents within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Original Application stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 19.11.2025
'mw'
Digitally
signed by
MAMTA
WADHWA