Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mohit vs Staff Selection Commission (Ssc) on 22 August, 2025
Item No.63 (Court-4) O.A. No.2539/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.2539/20
/2024
This the 22nd day of August
August, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Shri Mohit, S/O Shri Naresh Kumar, VPO Ludana,
Tehsil Safidon, District Jind, Haryana-126113.
Haryana 126113.
...Applicant
(By Advocates:
Advocate Mr. Harikesh Singh, Mr. Satish Hooda
Hooda)
Versus
1. The Regional Director, Northern Regional
Office, Staff Selection Commission (NR) Block
No. 12, 5th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi-110003.
Delhi
2. The General Manager, Canteen Stores
Department, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India.
119, Maharshi Karve Road,
Roa Mumbai-400020.
400020.
...Respondents.
(By Advocate: Mr. Sushil Kumar Tripathi
Tripathi)
---
Page 1 of 10
Item No.63 (Court-4) O.A. No.2539/2024
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):-
In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Tribunal Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):
"i) " i) declare the order dated 29/11/2023 illegal and may be quashed/set quashed/set-aside; and
ii) direct the respondent no. 2 to give appointment to the Applicant on the post of Clerk (LDC) in the Canteen Stores Department, 119 Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai with all consequential benefits; and
iii) allow the OA with exemplary costs.
iv) pass any other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
case."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is challenging the cancellation of offer of appointment to the post of LDC in Canteen Stores Department (CSD) vide its order dated dated 29.11.2023 passed by the respondents wherein it has been recorded as under:
"Cancellation Cancellation of Offer of Appointment to the post of LDC in CSD Ref Offer of Appointment letter No. 3/Pers/A 3/Pers/A-1/1098/LDC- 2018(NR)/1174dto 16th May 2023 issued to you as a result of SSC CHSL- 2018 Examination.
2 During scrutiny of the record (dossier) forwarded by the Staff Selection Commission (NR) and details of information furnished by you in CSF 4 (Attestation) form on dtd. 13th June2023 and the Police CSF-4 verification report report received from Pillukhada Police Station, it is observed that a case was recorded against you in register No. 9ii, 9i and register No. 9V against Case No. 26 dtd. 9th Jan 2014 Section 323,341,506 IPC at station city Jind and your were acquitted on 04th Au Aug 2014. However, this fact was concealed/suppressed by you while submitting "candidate Page 2 of 10 Item No.63 (Court-4) O.A. No.2539/2024 declaration/undertaking" at Olo SSC (NR), New Delhi on 05th July 2021 and while forwarding/submitting the CSF CSF-4 (Attestation) form on 13th June 2023 at Para 11 (I) (a to i) & 11 (II) which is enumerated below:
below:-
(a) Have you ever been arrested? If so please give details.
(b) Have you ever been a subject to criminal proceedings? If so please give details.
(c) Have you ever been kept under detention? If so please give detail details.
(d) Have any FIR been lodged against you?
(e) Have you ever been convicted by a Court of Law for any offence?
(f) Have you ever been debarred from any examination or restricted by any university or any educational authority / institution?
(g) Have you ever ever been debarred / disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at the examination / selection?
(h) Is any case pending against you in any court of law at the time of filling up this form?
(i) Is any case pending against you in any Univers University / or any other Educational authority / institution at the time of filling up this form?"
In all the above columns,, you had stated "NO" which tant tantamount to suppression of material facts.
It is also informed that, in Annexure Annexure-Il to the CSF-4 (attestation) form of this department it has been clearly confirmed by you that;
"I solemnly affirm that the above declaration is true. I understand that in the event of the declaration being found to be incorrect after my appointment I shall be liable to be dismiss dismissed from service."
which has been accepted by you in writing.
From the above it is proved beyond doubt that you deliberately concealed about the pending FIR lodged against you with the motive of securing a government job. It is also important to quote an ab abstract from the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment in Civil Appeal Nos 5743 5743-5744 of 2021 where it has observed as under:-
under:
"12. The issue/question may be considered from another angle, from the employer's point of view. The question is not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently acquitted or not. The question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of the employment, i.e., while submitting the declaration/verification and/or applying for a post made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressing material fact of having involved in a criminal case. If the correct facts would have Page 3 of 10 Item No.63 (Court-4) O.A. No.2539/2024 been disclosed, the employer might not have appoin appointed him. Then the question is of TRUST. Therefore, in such a situation, where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a falls statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and th therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The choice/options whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given iven to the employer. At the cost of repetition, it is observed and as observed hereinabove in catena of decision such an employee cannot claim the appointment and/or continue to be in service as a matter of right."
3. In view of the above, your appointment to the post of LDC in CSD issued vide letter No. 3/Pers/A-1/1098/LDC 3/Pers/A 1/1098/LDC-2018(NR)/1174 dtd. 16th May 2023 is hereby cancelled for the reasons stated above. Also please note that no further correspondence in this matter will be entertained by this office office and your dossier is being returnec to SSC (NR) New Delhi.
4. This has the approval of Competent Authority."
3. He further submits that the said impugned order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the respondents on the ground that the applicant has suppressed the material facts in the attestation form (CSF-4).
4). He submits that when the applicant was involved in a criminal case he was a juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 when the FIR No.26 dated 09.01.2014 under section 323/341/506 IPC PS City was registered. He further submitted that the applicant was acquitted by the Ld. Juvenile justice Board, Jind vide order dated 04.08.2014, which reads as under:
"10.
10. In view of aforesaid discussion, this board finds nothing to bring home the guilt of the juvenile in conflict with law. In these circumstances, the juvenile in conflict with law is acquitted and exonerated of accusations framed against him under Section 148, 323, 341 & 506 rw 149 of the Code for want of sufficient evidence and by givin giving benefits of doubts. His bail and surety bonds stand discharged.Page 4 of 10
Item No.63 (Court-4) O.A. No.2539/2024
4. He relies upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9109/2019 decided on 29.11.2019 titled Union of o India and Ors. vs. Ramesh Bishnoi Bishnoi, which reads as under:
"8. From the facts, it is clear that at the time when the charges were framed against the respondent, on 30 30-6-2009, the respondent was well under the age of 18 years as his date of birth is 55-9-1991. Firstly, it was not disputed that the charges were never proved against the respondent as the girl and her parents did not depose against the respondent, resulting in his acquittal on 24-11-2011.
24 2011. Even if the allegations were found to be true, then too, the respondent could not have been deprived of getting a job job on the basis of such charges as the same had been committed while the respondent was juvenile. The thrust of the legislation i.e. the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as well as the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Chi Children) Act, 2015 is that even if a juvenile is convicted, the same should be obliterated, so that there is no stigma with regard to any crime committed by such person as a juvenile. This is with the clear object to reintegrate such juvenile back inthe society society as a normal person, without any stigma. Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 lays down guidelines for the Central Government, State Governments, the Board and other agencies while implementing the provisions of the said Act. In clause (xiv) of Section 3, it is clearly provided as follows:
"3. (xiv) Principle of fresh start: All past records of any child under the juvenile justice system should be erased except in special circumstances."
9. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the respondent was a minor when the charges had been framed against him of the offences under Sections 354, 447 and 509 IPC. It is also not disputed that he was acquitted of the charges. However, even if he had been convicted, the same could not have been held against him for getting a job, as admittedly, he was a minor when the alleged offences were committed and the charges had been framed against him. Section 3(xiv) provides for the same and the exception of special circumstance circumstances does not apply to the facts of the present case.
10. Further, the case against the respondent is not with regard to the suppression of any conviction or charges having been framed against him. The respondent had very fairly disclosed about the charges wh which had been framed and his acquittal on the basis of no evidence having been adduced by the complainant against the respondent. In our considered view, the same can also not be said to be a suppression by the respondent, on the basis of which he could be deprived of a job, for which he was duly selected after following the due process and appointment having been offered to him.
Page 5 of 10Item No.63 (Court-4) O.A. No.2539/2024
11. For the reasons given hereinabove, we do not find any ground for interference with the orders passed by the learned Single Jud Judge³ as well as the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. The respondent shall be entitled to all the benefits of the judgment of the writ court within 30 days from today. No orders as to costs."
5. He further relies upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.14682/2023 decided on 23.02.2024 titled MD Parvej Alam vs. Union of India & Ors Ors., which reads as under:
"16. Undoubtedly, in the present case there is non non-revealing of the factum of a pending criminal case but the legal position seems quite clear and settled. A juvenile is not required to divulge about his previous antecedents. We may also, right here, make reference to Akhilesh Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.: 2018 SCC online Del 7341. In said case, petitioner had applied for the post of Constable in the Railway Protection Force. As per the selection process; he filled up the requisite form mentioning therein that no criminal case was registered against him. However, when the above form was sent for police verification, it was However, found that he was involved in a criminal case. It was in the aforesaid background that his appointment was cancelled and he was discharged:
Such order was challenged by him and a Coordinate Bench of this Court noted that the petitioner therein was juvenile at the time of the commission of offence and, therefore, he could not be made to suffer any disqualification in view of the provisions of the J.J. Act. The relevant para of the judgment reads re as under:-
"14. The object of Section 19 of the J.J. Act is to give an opportunity to the juvenile to lead a life with no stigma and to wipe out the circumstances of his inglorious past. It is for this reason that Section 19 provides that a juvenile shall shall not suffer any disqualification.
15. The issue involved in this petition is no longer res integra in view of a recent decision of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.6062/2017 titled as Mukesh Yadav vs.Union of India dated 14.12.2017 (authored by one of us, Hima Kohli, J.). In the said writ petition, a criminal case No.65/2000 under Sections 147/148/149/323/324/504/307 IPC was registered in District Gopal Ganj, Bihar against the petitioner and ten other accused persons. He was also selected to the post oof a Constable in the RPSF.
While submitting the attestation form, the petitioner did not mention about the pendency of the criminal case which came to the notice of the respondent only when the attestation form was sent for verification. The petitioner, who who was undergoing training by then, was issued a discharge order dated 29.07.2015 stating that since he had suppressed the fact of the pendency of the criminal case against him while filling the attestation form, he was being discharged as per the condition conditions mentioned in para 3 of the attestation form.
Page 6 of 10Item No.63 (Court-4) O.A. No.2539/2024
16. In the above noted writ petition also, the contention raised on behalf of the respondents was that it was the duty of the petitioner to have furnished the relevant details of the criminal case pending agai against him at the time of filling up the verification form. But he failed to do so and the pendency of the said case came to the notice of the respondents only upon undertaking necessary police verification regarding his antecedents. The above writ petition wasallowed wasallowed for the following reasons:
reasons:-
"7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the documents on the record. The facts of the case are undisputed inasmuch as there is no quarrel with regard to the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner titioner that on the date of the alleged offence i.e. on 9th October, 2000, the petitioner was twelve years five months old. It is also not disputed that on the date the petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of a Constable in the year 2011, a case was pending against him before the Juvenile Justice Board and same was the position on 25th May, 2014, when the petitioner was called upon by the respondents to submit an attestation form. The said criminal case attained finality by virtue of the judg judgment dated 3rd August, 2015, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, District Gopalganj. However, less than a week prior thereto, the respondents passed the order of discharge against the petitioner, on the ground of withholding material information.
8. Having ng regard to the legal position, which shows that the petitioner was undoubtedly, a juvenile on the date when the alleged offence had been committed and, therefore, he was required to be dealt with under the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") which declares that all criminal charges against individuals, who are described as "juvenile in conflict with law" must be initiated and decided by the authorities constituted under the Act by the Juvenile Justice Board. Even if a conviction is recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board, Section 19(1) of the Act, stipulates that the juvenile shall not suffer any disqualification attached to the conviction of an offence under such law. Further, as noted hereinabove, ve, Section 19(2) of the Act contemplates that the Board must pass an order directing that all therelevant records relating to such a conviction, be removed after the expiry of the period of appeal or within a reasonable period as prescribed under the rule rules, as the case may be.
9. In the present case, the record reveals that the Juvenile Justice Board had acquitted the petitioner for the offence in question and, therefore, this was even otherwise, not a case of conviction for any offence. It is also noteworthy thy that Section 21 of the Act prohibits publication of the name of the "juvenile in conflict with law", the underlying object of the said provision being to protect a juvenile from any adverse consequences on account of the conviction for an offence, committed as a juvenile.
10. Given the aforesaid position, the contention of the respondents is that petitioner was under an obligation to have disclosed the information relating to the pendency of the criminal case against him in respect of an incident that had ad taken place when he was all of Page 7 of 10 Item No.63 (Court-4) O.A. No.2539/2024 twelve years, would run contrary to the very spirit of the Act. Keeping in mind the fact that the object of the Act is to ensure that no stigma is attached to a juvenile in conflict with law, in our view, once the juvenile has been extended a protective umbrella under the said enactment, there was no good reason for the respondents to have insisted that the petitioner ought to have disclosed the information relating to the allegations against him pertaining to an offence th that was committed during his childhood where he was tried by the Juvenile Justice Board, and subsequently acquitted. We may add here that even when police verification in respect of the petitioner was being conducted on the directions of the respondents, th the concerned police officials ought to have refrained from revealing the information pertaining to the petitioner in the case in question, since he was a juvenileat that point in time. This was in fact a gross breach of confidentiality contemplated under th the Act.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 11th May, 2017, is unsustainable and is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from today along with all the consequenti consequential benefits, excluding back wages." (Emphasis added)
17. Thus, in view of the above facts and the legal position, the factum of prosecution of the petitioner in case FIR No.752/2010 under Sections 323/325/506/504 IPC could not have been taken into consideration ation by the respondent/RPSF on his omission to mention the same in the attestation form on account of his status as a juvenile in conflict with law on the date of commission of the alleged offence. We cannot ignore or overlook the beneficial provisions an and the socially progressive statute of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000."
17. Thus, applying the aforesaid legal position and keeping in mind the provisions of the JJ Act, 2000, it becomes quite obvious that the petitioner was under no legal obligation to have revealed the fact about his previous involvement in a criminal case, for an offence which he allegedly committed when he was a minor.
18. Thus, we have no hesitation in allowing the present writ petition. As a consequence thereof, the impugned Memoran Memorandum dated 09.08.2023 initiating inquiry against the petitioner is hereby set aside."
6. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the averments made in the counter affidavit.
He submits that the present O.A. is not maint maintainable inasmuch as the applicant has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. The said acquittal is not a clean acquittal. He further submits that as per the PVR received from Pillukheda Police Station it is found that the Page 8 of 10 Item No.63 (Court-4) O.A. No.2539/2024 applicant's name is recorded in in investigation register no. 9ii, 9iii and reg. no. 9V, FIR number 26 dated 09.01.2014 under section 323,341,506 IPC in police station city Jind (Annexure (Annexure-R/I). He submits that the Department has issued Offer of Appointment alongwith Attestation /CSF-4 /CSF forms ms & Annexure vide letter No. 3/Pers/A 3/Pers/A-1/1098/LDC-2018 2018 (NR)/1174 dated 16th May. 2023. The applicant submitted duly filled in At Attestation/CSF-4 forms, annexure and certificates on 13th June, 2023. A Police Verification Report was carried out vide this office office letter No. 3/Pers/A 3/Pers/A-1/1628 dated 10th July 2023 and on receipt of the police verification report dated 31st July 2023, it has been observed that there is a case recorded in register no. 9ii, 9iii and reg. no. 9V, case number 26 dated 09.01.2014 under Section Section 323,341,506 IPC in police station city Jind and was acquitted on 04th August, 2014. 1lowever, this fact was concealed by the applicant while submitting "candidate's declaration/undertaking at O/o SSC (NR), New Delhi on 05th July 202 1 in which it has been written that:
"I also declare that I do not stand debarred by SSC/UPSC or any other government recruiting agency as on date, and have never been convicted by any court of law. I also declare that no criminal case is pending against me. Further declare declare that I have never been dismissed or removed from Govt. Service or my service been terminated during probation."
7. Having heard counsel for the parties and perusing the pleadings available on record, we observed that it is not in dispute that the applicant nt was tried and acquitted, acquitted even though on benefit of doubt by Page 9 of 10 Item No.63 (Court-4) O.A. No.2539/2024 the Juvenile Justice Board. Non-disclosure Non disclosure by a minor at a relevant point of time does not hold much water in light of the decisions rendered in Union of India and Ors. vs. Ramesh Bishnoi (supra) and MD Parvej Alam (supra).
8. We also observed that while passing the interim directions on 02.07.2024, this Tribunal had observed as under:
"8. In such facts and circumstances, as an interim measure, the respondents are directed not to fill up the post of LDC against which the applicant was selected and offer of appointment was issued to him, till the next date of hearing."
9. In view of the same, we quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 29.11.2023. Respondents are directed to issue an off offer of appointment, if otherwise, the applicant is fulfilling all other eligible terms and conditions within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to mention, consequential reliefs on notional basis shal shall also flow to the applicant, including the seniority and notional fixation of pay. Actual benefit shall accrue from the date of his joining.
10. With the above directions, the Original Application is allowed.
All pending MAs,, if any, also stand disposed oof. No costs.
(Dr.
Dr. Anand S Khati)
Khati (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sb/
Page 10 of 10