Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Manoj Paul vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, Govt. Of ... on 21 April, 2022
1 O.A. No.2517/2021
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.2517
2517 of 2021
Orders reserved on : 12.04.2022
Orders pronounced on : 21.4.2022
.2022
Hon'ble Mr. A.K. Bishnoi, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Manoj Paul
S/o Shri Nirod Bihari Paul
R/o Madhupur-1,
Madhupur Digilipur,
North Andaman, A & N Islands, 744202.
... Applicant
(Applicant
Applicant in person)
person
Versus
us
1. The Chairman, DMRC Ltd.,
Delhi Metro Rail Academy (DMRC)
Train Depot, Shastri Park,
Delhi
Delhi-110053.
2. Government of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat,
Players Building, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
Delhi
... Respondents
(through Advocate Shri V.S.R. Krishna
Krishna)
2 OA No2517/2021
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J) :
The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to challenge the order dated 20.10.2021 passed by the respondent No.1 in compliance of the Order/Judgment of this Tribunal dated 10.9.2021 passed in OA 1977/2021, filed by the instant applicant as well, vide which respondent no.1 rejected the appointment of the applicant to the post of Junior Engineer.
2. The applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
"a) Allow the present Original Application with all consequential benefits;
b) to direct the Respondent-Corporation to keep one vacancy for the Applicant;
c) Issue direction to the respondents to provide appointment letter or joining letter to the applicant immediately.
d) Quash and set aside the non-speaking order & arbitrary Impugned Order passed by the Respondent-Corporation rejecting the request of the Applicant to allow him to join the service.
e) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."3 OA No2517/2021
3. This is the second round of litigation before this Tribunal. Earlier the applicant had filed Writ Petition (C) No.8033/2021 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which was dismissed as withdrawn, vide Order/Judgment dated 9.8.2021, with liberty to the applicant to approach this Tribunal, as Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), i.e., respondent no.1 herein, had been notified under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Thereafter, the applicant had filed OA No.1977/2021, which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide Order/Judgment dated 10.9.2021 with the following directions:-
"6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, with the consent of the parties, the present OA is disposed of with liberty to the applicant to supply all the relevant information, copies of the FIRs against him, the decisions of the competent court on those FIRs, if any, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within ten days from today. On receipt of such information/documents from the applicant, the respondent no. 1 is directed to take a final decision with regard to the issuance of offer of appointment to the applicant for the post of Junior Engineer/Environment (RNE04) as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks of receipt of a copy of the relevant documents and information referred to hereinabove and communicate the same to the applicant within a week thereof. The OA is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.4 OA No2517/2021
There shall be no order as to costs. We may clarify that while disposing of the present OA, we have not gone into the merit."
4. In compliance of the aforesaid directions of this Tribunal passed in the said OA, the respondents have passed the order dated 20.10.2021, which is under challenge in the present OA.
5. Pursuant to notice from this Tribunal, the respondent No.1 has filed reply. The applicant has also filed his rejoinder.
6. We have perused the pleadings on records and considered the submissions made by the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. Undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent No.1, i.e., the Corporation had advertised various categories of posts vide Advertisement No.DMRC/HR/Rectt./1/2019 dated 14.12.2019, which also includes the post of Junior Engineer/Environment (Post Code NRE04). The applicant who is stated to be B.Tech from VRSEC Vijaywada & M.Tech from IIT Bombay, had applied online for the post of Junior 5 OA No2517/2021 Engineer/Environment (Post Code NRE04) and at that time, he had categorically mentioned "No" in respect to a question "Have you ever been arrested/prosecuted/kept under detention or convicted, fined by a court of law or barred from any examination or rusticated by any University. The applicant had appeared in the Computer Based Test, which was held on 17.2.2020 and based on the performance in the said Test, he was empanelled provisionally for appointment to the said post and thereafter, he was called for document verification and for pre-appointment medical examination for the said post. On being found medically fit, he was called for joining on 20.7.2021. However, at the time of checking of documents before joining, it was noticed that in the Attestation Form, the applicant had responded "Yes" to the questions as to whether he had ever been arrested or prosecuted or kept under detention or any case was pending in any Court of Law or any FIR pending. In one of the questions asked - ा आप िकसी अपराध के िलए िविध ायालय दवारा आप पर दोषारोिपत िकये गये है ? Have you ever been convicted by a Court of Law for any notice?, the applicant had replied as "No". However, when in the said Attestation Form, he was asked 6 OA No2517/2021 to give full particulars of the cases/arrest/detention/fine/conviction/sentence/punish ment. etc. and/or the nature of the case pending in the Court, at the time of filling up the Attestation Form, the applicant mentioned "(No space to fill details)". He had also certified that the information furnished by him in the Attestation Form was correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief. However, on being asked, the applicant informed that four FIRs were filed against him in which he was acquitted in January 2019 and five FIRs were pending against him, in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair. The applicant has also submitted copies of five FIRs pending against him under Sections 34, 153A, 295A, 384, 504, 505/2, 506, 509 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the matter of pending Court cases was required to be looked into and necessary due diligence had to be exercised, his joining on 20.7.2021 was kept in abeyance. While the matter was being examined, the applicant preferred the afore- mentioned Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 9.8.2021 granting liberty to the applicant to approach this Tribunal. On examination of the case papers submitted by the 7 OA No2517/2021 applicant, he was advised vide letter dated 12.8.2021 to provide the certified copies of the concerned learned Court's orders, including his acquittal and the exact status of the cases pending against him, upon obtaining from the police authority as to whether charge sheet was filed or not. He was also informed that till such time, final decision in his case was taken his candidature would be kept in abeyance, subject to the validity of the panel. In response thereof, the applicant vide his e-mail dated 28.8.2021 submitted copies of judgments dated 24.9.2018, 30.11.2018 and 4.2.2019 of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Port Blair and 1 judgment in Criminal Appeal No.02/2018 of learned Additional District & Sessions Court dated 07.06.2018. However, he neither submitted any document of the cases related to pending five FIRs nor their current status with regard to the chargesheet. While the case of the applicant was under the examination of the respondents, the applicant had approached this Tribunal by filing OA 1977/2021, which was disposed of vide Order/Judgment dated 10.9.2021 with directions as quoted above. In terms of the aforesaid directions of this Tribunal, the applicant has submitted the documents of nine cases relating to 8 OA No2517/2021 pendency as well as disposed-off criminal case(s) on 16.9.2021, which are summarized as under:-
Sl. FIR No. & Charge-Sheet Filed Allegations, in Documents Remarks Date No. U/S ofbrief, leveled submitted by Shri IPC against Shri Paul Paul 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A CASES WHERE SHRI MANOJ PAUL HAS INFORMED THAT HE HAS BEEN ACQUITTED 1 156/2012, 307/2013, 504, Complainant Order, Convicted by dated dated: 506, subjected to dated: Hon'ble Court U/S 26/04/2012 13/10/2013 509 of harassment, 07/06/2018 504 IPC in IPC r/w mental torture of Hon'ble (intentional insult Sections and Shri Paul used Addl. with intent to 66A, using filthy District & provoke breach of 66C, language and Sessions the peace) with 01 66E and threatened her Judge, Port year Rigorous 43 of IA and family Blair in imprisonment with Act members with Criminal fine of Rs. 1000/-2000. dire Appeal No. ID to SI for 01
consequences 02/2018 month by Ld. stating that JMFC-II, Port Blair Shri Manoj vide Order dated Paul was 19/01/2018 found not Shri Manoj Paul guilty in neither provided respect of the copy of Order the offence dated: 19/01/2018 U/S 504 and nor his Bail Orders.
acquitted.
2 95/2016, 193/2017, 354(A) Allegation 1 Order The Hon'ble Court dated: dated: (I) (IV), Sending obscene dated: discharged Shri 14/06/2016 26/08/2017 354D, SMS/unwanted 30/11/2018 Manoj Paul of his 507,509 calls to of Hon'ble liabilities of bail r/w complainant, Court of bond. The Hon'ble Section threatening her, Judicial Court also 67(A) of her husband and Magistrate remarked that, "...
IA daughters. First Class, the prosecution
(2008) Port Blair. side has failed to
Act. Allegation 2 prove the charged
Sexually abusing offences against
daughter of the accused
Complainant. person beyond the
shadow of all
Allegation 3 reasonable doubt
Posting due to want of
defamatory sufficient and
matters on social cogent evidence."
media against
previous IO of the
case and another
police officer
Allegation 4
9 OA No2517/2021
Threat to Ld.
C.J.M., Port Blair,
pressurizing him
to stop the
investigation and
take action
against the IOs of
the case.
3 154/2017 305/2017 195(A), Pressurized the Order Hon'ble Court
dated: dated: 504, Complainant to dated: Discharged Shri
24/05/2017 07/11/2017 506 withdraw the 24/09/2018 Manoj Paul of his
(separate), of Hon'ble liabilities of bail
criminal case filed Court of bond.
earlier by her and Judicial
threatened to kill Magistrate
complainant and First Class,
her daughters Port Blair
4 552/2017 556/2017, 392, Complainant was Order Hon'ble Court
dated: dated: 393 attacked his dated: discharged Shri
26/10/2017 08/11/2017 phone snatched 04/02/2019 Manoj Paul of his
and assaulted. of Hon'ble liabilities of bail
Court of bond. The Hon'ble
Judicial Court also
Magistrate remarked that "To
First Class, Be specific the
Port Blair. prosecution has
failed to prove
their case beyond
the shadow of all
reasonable doubt
and in view such
benefit of doubt
must go in favour
of the accused
resulting his
acquittal from
both the charge
punishable U/S
392/323 of I.P.C."
Sl. FIR No. & Charge-Sheet Filed Allegations, in Documents Remarks
Date No. U/S of brief, leveled submitted
IPC against Shri Paul by Shri Paul
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
B. WHERE SHRI MANOJ PAUL HAS INFORMED THAT CASES ARE PENDING BEFORE HON'BLE COURT FOR TRIAL 1 154/2020, 19/21, dated: 153(A) / Uploaded video 1. Ch In the said charge-
dated 01/02/2021 295(A) / on Youtube titled arge- Sheet sheet date of 16/04/202 505(2) / "Nexus between filed in the arrest has been 0 509 Police and Hon'ble mentioned as /506 Advocates in Court of 08/12/2020 and Andaman" on CJM Port indicated as 'Not 07/04/2020 with Blair Bailed'.
the allegations It is a fact that Shri
that he has a Manoj Paul is out
habit of using as he reported for
social media and document
spread verification
inflammatory and medical
provoking examination and
10 OA No2517/2021
contents and joining. But Shri
words spoken in Manoj Paul did not
the video to submit copy of his
public mischief Bail Order.
creating or
promoting
enmity, hatred or
ill-will between
classes.
Moreover, e is a
habitual offender.
2. 230/2020, 63/21, dated: 504, 1. Charge- In the said charge-
dated: 30/06/2021 506, Sheet sheet date of
14/04/202 509 filed in arrest has been
0 the mentioned as
Hon'ble 30/12/2020 and
Court of Shri Paul was
CJM bailed by Court.
Port
Blair It is a fact that Shri
Manoj Paul is out,
as he reported for
document
verification,
medical
examination and
joining. But Shri
Manoj Paul did not
submit copy of his
Bail Order.
3. 234/2020 21/2021 384, 1. Ch In the said charge-
dated: dated: 511 arge- Sheet sheet, it has been
28/04/202 17/03/2021 filed in the mentioned that
0 Hon'ble Shri Manoj Paul
Court of was not arrested.
CJM Port Bail granted by
Blair Hon'ble CJM
Court, Port Blair.
Shri Manoj Paul
did not submit
copy of his Bail
Order.
4. 235/2020 32/21, dated: 384, 1. Ch In the said charge-
dated: 26/04/2021 504, arge- Sheet sheet, date of
29/04/202 506, filed in the arrest has been
0 511,34 Hon'ble mentioned as
Court of 08/12/2020 and
CJM Port date of release on
Blair bail is 03/02/2021:
bailed by Hon'ble
Court. In a
different charge-
sheet No.:
154/2020. It has
been mentioned
that a Non Bailable
Warrant was
issued against Shri
Manoj Paul in FIR
11 OA No2517/2021
No. 235/2020 and
he was arrested
from Delhi taken
to Port Blair and
was sent to Judicial
Custody for 14
days, from
11/12/2020
It is a fact that Shri
Manoj Paul is out,
as he reported for
document
verification,
medical
examination and
joining. But Shri
Manoj Paul did not
submit copy of his
Bail Order.
5. 236/2020, 18/21, dated: 384, 34, Threatened to kill 1. Charge- In the said charge-
dated 01/03/2021 511 family members Sheet sheet, date of
30/04/2020 of the filed in arrest has been
complainant and the mentioned as
extortion of Hon'ble 11/12/2020 and
money Court of date of release on
CJM Port bail was
Blair 24/12/2020:
bailed by Hon'ble
Court
It is a fact that Shri
Manoj Paul is out,
as he reported for
document
verification,
medical
examination and
joining. But Shri
Manoj Paul did not
submit copy of his
Bail Order.
8. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order dated 20.10.2021 vide which the applicant's candidature for appointment to the above post was rejected. Hence, the instant OA.
9. During the course of hearing, applicant, who appears in person, has submitted that from the facts of the case, it 12 OA No2517/2021 could only be a case of a clear and simple inadvertent human error and that the applicant had no ill intention of hiding his particulars and this should not form the basis of disqualifying him from being appointed. Applicant has further submitted that he had no reason to withhold any information at the stage of filling the application form. If he had any ill intention, then he would not have disclosed the same at a later stage after being selected for the said post. Yet he chose to honestly disclose the information. Applicant himself has admitted in para III of Grounds of the OA that he does not recall having any intention of not disclosing all his particulars nor does he have the means to disprove the respondents. Applicant has further submitted that he was solely denied employment on the ground of his involvement in the false FIRs. He has further submitted that while passing the impugned order the respondents have not taken into consideration the fact that the applicant has been acquitted in four cases out of nine cases registered against him. He has further stated that in the impugned order, the Corporation has falsely stated that the documents were not provided, whereas ever since his appointment was kept in abeyance, he has been running from pillar to post to prove his innocence for 13 OA No2517/2021 an unintentional error. Applicant has also submitted that in view of the above, the impugned order dated 20.10.2021 is illegal and unjustified and suffers from various infirmities and is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, applicant has placed reliance on the following Order(s)/Judgments:-
(i) Commissioner of Police and others vs. Ajay Kumar Dhama, reported in MANU/DE/3563/2012, decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi;
(ii) Avtar Singh vs. Union of India, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court;
(iii) Mohammed imran vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in AIR 2018 SC 4895, decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court;
10. Per contra, Shri Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents, with the assistance of the assertions made in the counter affidavit, has submitted that it is an admitted position in the instant case while filling online application form, the applicant was required to give a categorical response, i.e., either 'Yes' or 'No' to a question - "Have you ever been arrested/prosecuted/kept under detention or 14 OA No2517/2021 convicted, fined by a court of law or barred from any examination or rusticated by any University?", the applicant had categorically mentioned 'No' to the said question, whereas in the instant application, the applicant pleaded that the same is clear and simple inadvertent error, which cannot be acceptable in the eyes of law in view of the fact that he had been facing legal proceedings in at least five criminal cases. Shri Krishna has further submitted at the time of submission of Attestation Form, when the applicant was bound to give full particulars of the cases/arrested/detention/find/ conviction/sentence/punishment etc. and/or the nature of the case pending before the Court(s), he wilfully chose not to mention the relevant details, by simply mentioning "(No space to fill details)". It was only upon being probed at the time of checking of documents before joining, he submitted a letter mentioning about the pending as well as disposed-off cases in the Court(s). Besides, in response to a question - "Have you ever been convicted by a Court of Law for any notice?", the applicant had replied "No". However, the applicant was convicted by the Hon'ble Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Port Blair, u/s 504 IPC with 01 year Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of 15 OA No2517/2021 Rs.1000/- Id to SI for 01 month, vide Order dated 19.1.2018. Notwithstanding the fact that the applicant was found not guilty in respect of offence u/s 504 IPC by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Port Blair, in Criminal Appeal No.2/2018, however, the applicant was bound to truthfully declare the above- mentioned fact.
11. Shri Krishna, has further submitted that the verification of the character and antecedents is an important criterion to test whether the selected candidate is suitable for on-boarding in the Organization. The Corporation is a Public Utility Service Organization, wherein exemplary character and antecedents are an imperative. As such the appointing authority is within its rights to debar appointment of a person who is unfit or has a questionable background. He has further added that the employer is bound to consider various other aspects of criminal case(s) pending against the candidate, including but not limited to the overall conduct of the candidate and the charges levelled in a case. While so considering, the job profile for which the selection is undertaken, is also taken into account. In support of his above contention, 16 OA No2517/2021 Shri Krishna has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra). Shri Krishna has drawn our attention of Ministry of Home Affairs OM dated 2.7.1982 wherein it has been provided that "It will be the responsibility of the appointing authority to satisfy itself about the identity and suitability of the candidate according to the prescribed criteria before making any appointment. He has also emphasised that it is admitted by the applicant that he has suppressed the fact of his conviction in the criminal case while filling up online application form as well as while filling Attestation Form, as in the attestation form, he has only stated that "(No space to fill details)". Learned counsel has further submitted that only upon being probed at the time of checking of documents before joining, the applicant submitted a letter mentioning about the pending as well as disposed-off cases in the learned Court(s). Shri Krishna has also added that despite the fact that while disposing of the applicant's earlier OA, this Tribunal specifically directed the applicant to supply all the relevant information, copies of the FIRs against him, the decisions of the competent court on those FIRs, if any, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within ten days of 17 OA No2517/2021 receipt of a copy of the said Order to the Corporation, the applicant did not submit complete relevant documents related to his cases. The charge-sheets filed in the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair, clearly mentioned the date of arrest of the applicant and status of bail as 'Not Bailed'. As such it is evident that the applicant wilfully chose neither to disclose the fact that he was granted bail nor provided copy of the Bail Orders which could certify that no condition was imposed by the learned Courts while granting him bail. However, upon receipt of documents from the applicant on 16.9.2021, the respondent No.1 in compliance of the directions of this Tribunal contained in Order/Judgment dated 10.9.2021 passed in OA 1977/2020, passed a detailed reasoned and speaking order dated 30.10.2021, which can be ascertained by perusing the impugned order wherein the competent authority had decided that the applicant cannot be considered for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer/Environment, particularly when he had suppressed the material information at the time of online applicant that five criminal cases were pending against him and the job profile of JE/Environment involved dealing with sensitive project matters where the standards 18 OA No2517/2021 of good behaviour and integrity were required. Therefore, the applicant was not issued offer of appointment and his candidature was cancelled. In support of the stand of the respondents, Shri Krishna, learned counsel, has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & others vs. Ram Ratan Yadav in Appeal (Civil) No.3266/2001, decided on 26.2.2003, and Government of NCT of Delhi and others vs. Bheem Singh Meena, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 339.
12. We have perused the pleadings on record and have also considered the submissions made by the applicant, who appears in person, as well as by the learned counsel for the respondents and have also perused the judgments relied upon by the parties.
13. From the above, it is evident that applicant has suppressed material information regarding question 'Have you ever been arrested/prosecuted/kept under detention or convicted, fined by a court of law or barred from any examination or rusticated by any University?, as he has written 'No' while filling his online application form for the above post. Even in the Attestation Form, the applicant 19 OA No2517/2021 with regard to above question as mentioned that 'No space to fill details'. It was only when the Corporation asked the applicant in this regard, the applicant informed that four FIRs were filed against him in which he was acquitted in January 2019 and five FIRs were pending against him, in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair. Further in previous round of litigation, the stand of the respondents was that various FIRs are lodged and pending investigation/adjudication against the applicant and in the circumstances, the applicant was requested to supply a copy of those FIRs and/or any further order/decision thereon, which fact although was disputed by the applicant but in pursuance of this Tribunal's earlier order, the applicant has supplied copies of the same and upon receipt of the same, the respondents have passed the order, which is impugned in the present OA.
14. We have minutely gone through the impugned order, which cannot be said to be a non-speaking order, in which while recording the facts, as noted above, the Corporation, i.e., respondent no.1 has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) as well as MHA's OM dated 2.7.1982, the relevant portion of which has already been quoted in para 10 20 OA No2517/2021 above. Besides relying upon certain other judgments by the parties, applicant as well as counsel for the respondents have mainly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) in support of their respective claim. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Methu Meda, JT 2021 (10) SC 11, has considered the similar issue in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
"17. The law with regard to the effect and consequence of the acquittal, concealment of criminal case on appointments etc. has been settled in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), wherein a three Judge Bench of this Court decided, as thus:
"38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarize 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 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.21 OA No2517/2021
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 recourse 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 22 OA No2517/2021 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 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 4 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, 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 23 OA No2517/2021 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."
18. In view of the above, in the facts of the present case, as per paras 38.3, 38.4.3 and 38.5, it is clear that the employer is having right to consider the suitability of the candidate as per government orders/instructions/rules at the time of taking the decision for induction of the candidate in employment. Acquittal on technical ground in respect of the offences of heinous/serious nature, which is not a clean acquittal, the employer may have a right to consider all relevant facts available as to the antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. Even in case, truthful declaration regarding concluded trial has been made by the employee, still the employer has the right to consider antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
15. Further on identical facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bheem Singh Meena (supra) has held as under:-
"10. We find that the respondent, seeking appointment to the post of trained graduate teacher, is not an illiterate or uneducated person who can claim the ignorance of the meaning of the word 'prosecution'. Avtar Singh (supra) was a case of the appointment to the post of a constable. This Court has held that giving of a wrong information dis- entitles the candidate for appointment."24 OA No2517/2021
16. Since the issue involved in the present case has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) and subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra), we do not find it relevant to go into the applicability of other judgments relied upon by the parties as noted above.
17. Having regard to undisputed facts of the instant case, as noted above and keeping in view the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Methu Medha (supra) and Bheem Singh Meena (supra), in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court by relying upon the judgment in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), rejected the claim of the candidate in the said cases for appointment to a post(s) in question, we do not find any merit in the instant case and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(R.N. Singh) (A.K. Bishnoi) Member (J) Member (A) /ravi/