Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Banwari Lal Meghwal vs Aiims on 4 December, 2025
1 O.A.No. 200/01091/2023
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.200/01091/2023
Jabalpur, this Thursday, the 4th day of December, 2025
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Banwari Lal Meghwal, S/o Shri Radha Kishan Meghwal, aged about 28
years, Occupation - Nursing Officer (Staff Nurse Grade - II), R/o 378 -
2/C Saket Nagar, Bhopal District Bhopal (M.P.) Pin Code- 462024
-Applicant
(By Advocate - Shri Sanjay Singh)
Versus
1. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare (PMSSY Division), Nirman Bhawan, Moulana Azad Road, New
Delhi Pin Code - 110011
2. The All India Institute of Medical Sciences, through its Director, Saket
Nagar, Bhopal, District - Bhopal (M.P.). Pin Code - 462024
3. President, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, through its Director,
Saket Nagar, Bhopal, District - Bhopal (M.P.). Pin Code - 462024
- Respondents
(By Advocate - Shri N K Mishra)
Page 1 of 13
VISHAL 2025.12.04
17:41:06
KUSHWAH+05'30'
2 O.A.No. 200/01091/2023
Reserved
ORDER
By Mallika Arya, AM:
Through this Original Application, the applicant is assailing the notice of termination of service issued by the respondents wherein it has been informed to the applicant that his services shall stand terminated i.e. after date of expiry of a period of one month from the date on which the notice has been served. The impugned notice was issued and served on the applicant on 31.10.2023. Accordingly, his services would stand terminated on 30.11.2023.
2. Briefly stating, the facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed in the respondent department on 09.12.2019 on probation for a period of 2 years. He joined his duties on 14.01.2020 in pursuance of the appointment order. Though the applicant completed probation period of two years but the probation period was neither extended nor any certificate for successful completion of probation period was issued to him. Suddenly the respondents issued impugned notice of termination of the services treating him still on probation. As per letter dated 09.12.2019 (Annexure A/1) the applicant was offered appointment to the post of Nursing Officer (Staff Nurse Grade-II), at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Bhopal. In the offer of appointment dated 09.12.2019, Page 2 of 13 VISHAL 2025.12.04 17:41:06 KUSHWAH+05'30' 3 O.A.No. 200/01091/2023 Reserved 19 conditions were stipulated. As per condition No. 2 it has been mentioned as follows:
"During the period of probation, you will be treated as a temporary employee and your services will be governed by the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. Your appointment is liable to be terminated, in case of misconduct, non-satisfactory performance or if your antecedents are reported to be un-satisfactory at a later stage."
And as per the condition No.3 of the appointment letter, it has been mentioned as follows:
"after successful completion of your probation period, your appointment may be terminated at any time giving 3 months notice by either side, viz the appointee or the appointing authority without assigning any reason whatsoever. It will be open to the institute to pay salary in lieu of notice for the period by which the notice falls short. ....".
The applicant accepted all conditions as contained in offer letter dated 09.12.2019 and submitted the necessary documents to the respondents for completion of necessary formalities. Thereafter, vide office order dated 21.01.2020 (Annexure A/2) the applicant was posted in the establishment of Medical Superintendent, AIIMS, Bhopal. Though the probation period expired in the month of January 2022 however no order has been passed in writing by the competent authority regarding successful completion of Page 3 of 13 VISHAL 2025.12.04 17:41:06 KUSHWAH+05'30' 4 O.A.No. 200/01091/2023 Reserved probation period of the applicant. The authorities were under lawful obligation to issue necessary orders either for extension of probation period or for completion of probation period. The applicant relies on the guidelines of DoP&T dated 21.07.2014 (Annexure A/3) wherein it has been mentioned that it is a mandatory requirement for issuance of a certificate for completion of probation or for extension of probation in respect of employees who are working on probation. Without extending the probation period and without issuing any certificate/order, the respondent No. 3 has issued impugned notice dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure A/4) whereby he has been informed that in pursuance of sub rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, his services shall stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of 1 month from the date of the notice. The applicant has prayed that the impugned notice dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure A/4) should be set aside and the respondents be directed to allow the applicant to continue in service with all consequential benefits.
3. The respondents have filed their reply, wherein it has been submitted that the applicant was appointed on 09.12.2019 (Annexure R/1) to the post of Nursing Officer as Probationer for a period of two years. As per clause 4 of terms and condition of the appointment letter, the appointment of the applicant was subject to production of a character Page 4 of 13 VISHAL 2025.12.04 17:41:06 KUSHWAH+05'30' 5 O.A.No. 200/01091/2023 Reserved certificate / police verification and antecedents from concerned police authority. The Superintendent of Police, Bundi vide Police Verification/Antecedents Report dated 04.10.2021 (Annexure R/2) informed the respondents that a case bearing No. 360/2016 was filed against the applicant for the offences under Sections 147, 323 & 324 IPC in which a charge-sheet was filed against the applicant on 25.11.2016. The trial court convicted the applicant vide judgment dated 06.04.2018. However, he was given the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The applicant deliberately suppressed the fact of conviction and penalty, not only at the time of applying for the post, but also on 14.01.2020 wherein he submitted a declaration during documents verification that neither a criminal case is pending against him nor has he suffered any conviction by any court of law.
A show-cause under Rule 5 (1) of CCS (Temporary Service Rule) 1965 was issued to the applicant on 31.10.2023 (Annexure R/3). At the time when the advertisement was issued, the applicant already stood convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 323 & 324 IPC by the competent criminal court which he did not disclose. It has been submitted that as the applicant suppressed the material fact of criminal case firstly in the year 2018 when he submitted the application and thereafter subsequently on Page 5 of 13 VISHAL 2025.12.04 17:41:06 KUSHWAH+05'30' 6 O.A.No. 200/01091/2023 Reserved 14.01.2020 when he submitted a declaration at the time of documents verification.
The respondents have relied on the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. v.Anil Kanwariya, (2021) 10 SCC 136 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court had held as follows:-
13. Even otherwise, subsequently getting the benefit of Section 12 of the 1958 Act shall not be helpful to the respondent inasmuch as the question is about filing a false declaration on 14.04.2015 that neither any criminal case is pending against him nor has he been convicted by any court of law, which was much prior to the order-passed by the learned Sessions Court granting the benefit of Section 12 of the 1958 Act. As observed hereinabove, even in case of subsequent acquittal, the employee once made a false declaration and/or suppressed the material fact of pending criminal case shall not be entitled to an appointment as a matter of right.
14. 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 been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him. Then the question is of TRUST. Therefore, in such a Page 6 of 13 VISHAL 2025.12.04 17:41:06 KUSHWAH+05'30' 7 O.A.No. 200/01091/2023 Reserved situation, where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and 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/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given 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.
The respondents have submitted that Verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test the suitability of the candidate to a particular post. On account of his antecedents, the appointing authority did not find it desirable to continue with the services of the applicant. Mere completion of two years of service does not confer a right on an applicant to become permanent. As per Clause 3 of the appointment letter, services are liable to be terminated in case of misconduct, unsatisfactory performance or unsatisfactory antecedents.
4. The applicant has filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents wherein he has reiterated the submissions made in the Original Application. The additional reply filed by the counsel for the respondents has also been taken into consideration. Page 7 of 13 VISHAL 2025.12.04 17:41:06 KUSHWAH+05'30' 8 O.A.No. 200/01091/2023 Reserved
5. We have considered the matter, heard the counsels for the parties and perused the documents and the case laws relied upon by the counsels.
6. The sole issue involved here is regarding the applicant giving a false declaration that "no criminal case is pending against him or the fact that he has been convicted by any court of law." The respondents have submitted in their reply that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have frauded or misrepresented themselves. In such circumstances the courts should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf and if the declarant has answered the questions in the negative and on verification it is found that the answers were false, the employer has discretion to refuse employment or terminate the employee, if already employed. The fact remains when there has been suppression or non-disclosure of material information bearing on the character. That itself becomes a reason for not employing the declarant.
7. As per the reply of the respondents the probation period of the applicant was not confirmed since in the interim the report dated 04.10.2021 (Annexure R/2) of SP, Boondi, regarding conviction of the applicant was received. It has also been brought to light in the report that the applicant was convicted of the offences under section 147, 323 & 324 Page 8 of 13 VISHAL 2025.12.04 17:41:06 KUSHWAH+05'30' 9 O.A.No. 200/01091/2023 Reserved of the IPC. Mere completion of two years of service does not confer right on the applicant to become permanent. His appointment was provisional subject to receipt of satisfactory police verification and character antecedent certificate from the police authorities. The candidature of the applicant on receipt of the police verification report has been dealt with as per the terms and conditions of his appointment. We also take note of Clause 3 of the Appointment Order wherein it has been mentioned that, service is liable to be terminated in case of misconduct, unsatisfactory performance or unsatisfactory antecedents. During the period of probation the applicant was treated as a temporary employee and his services was governed by CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. By virtue of clause 2 of the appointment order, the applicant was issued the impugned notice of termination under Rule 5(1) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (for brevity "Rules of 1965") on 31.10.2023 informing him that his services shall stand terminated on expiry of period of one month which shall be counted from 31.10.2023.
8. We take note of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Applicant (Union of India & ors. vs Banwari Lal Meghwal) when the respondents approached Hon'ble High Court of M.P. invoking supervisory jurisdiction against the interim order passed by this Tribunal Page 9 of 13 VISHAL 2025.12.04 17:41:06 KUSHWAH+05'30' 10 O.A.No. 200/01091/2023 Reserved in this O.A.. The Miscellaneous Petition No. 681/2024 was decided on 15.05.2024 wherein the Hon'ble Court has held as follows:
"6.1 However, this Court is of the considered view that the finding recorded by Tribunal, that respondent/employee was charged and convicted for offence of trivial nature, while passing the impugned order, is misplaced 'and thus unsustainable for reasons infra:-
(i) It seems that Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the question involved in OA was not of respondent/employee being charged or punished for any particular offence, but essentially of the fact of respondent/employee having suppressed material information of being criminally prosecuted by fumishing incorrect information (that respondent was never prosecuted), in his Verification Form, thereby revealing the attribute of untrustworthness and unreliability, reflecting adversely on his character/moral fiber. Please See (1974) 2 SCC 831 (Shamsher Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors.) (Para 64 and 158) (2016) 8 SCC 471 (Avtar Singh vs. Union of ndia & Ors) (Para 32, 33 and 38)
(ii) Learned counsel for petitioner/employer has relied upon (2021) 10 SCC 136 (Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Another vs. Anil Kanwariya) (Para 13, 14 and 15) whereas learned counsel for respondent/employee has relied upon 2022 Live Law (SC) 441 (Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India & Anr.) (Para 16) to emphasize the point that decision relied upon by petitioner/employer in Anil Kanwariya (supra) was distinguished on facts in Pawan Kumar (supra).Page 10 of 13
VISHAL 2025.12.04 17:41:06 KUSHWAH+05'30' 11 O.A.No. 200/01091/2023 Reserved
(iii) The decision of Pawan Kumar (supra) may not be of any assistance to respondent/employee since attending facts in Pawan Kumar (supra) reveal that employee had been honourably acquitted of the criminal charges.
(iv) Present case is not a case of clean/honourable acquittal, but of conviction with benefit of probation u/S.12 of Act of 1958 and also, of giving wrong information in the Attestation Form in Clause 12 by disclosing that respondent was neither arrested nor prosecuted nor convicted for any offence at any point of time,
7. In view of above, where the facts attending the respondent's case were of suppression of material information of being criminally prosecuted, the Tribunal ought not to have exercised its discretionary powers to grant stay of impugned termination notice."
9. The applicant has also relied on the judgment of 2022 Live Law (SC) 441 Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India & Anr.. However, in the aforesaid case, employee was honorably acquitted of the criminal charges but in the present case, the applicant has been convicted as per the report of SP, Boondi.
10. Reliance is further placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors (2016) 8 SCC 471 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
"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 Page 11 of 13 VISHAL 2025.12.04 17:41:06 KUSHWAH+05'30' 12 O.A.No. 200/01091/2023 Reserved 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......
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."
11. Therefore, in light of the facts narrated by the respondents and the case laws on the subject, we observe that no fault can be found in the action of the respondents in terminating the candidature of the applicant on account of him furnishing false information and suppressing the material facts relating to his conviction in a criminal case.
12. In view of the observations in the pre-pages and the case laws on the subject, we do not find any merit in the case of the applicant. Page 12 of 13 VISHAL 2025.12.04 17:41:06 KUSHWAH+05'30' 13 O.A.No. 200/01091/2023 Reserved
13. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(MallikaArya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
VK/-
Page 13 of 13
VISHAL 2025.12.04
17:41:06
KUSHWAH+05'30'