Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Adithyan A vs Deptt Of Posts on 21 January, 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A.No.180/00531/2023
Wednesday, this the 21st day of January, 2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Adithyan.A, aged 25 years, S/o late P. Anilkumar, Postman, Calicut Head
Post Office (under termination from service vide Order dated
06/10/2023), residing at 'Parvathy vilas', Devi Nagar, Vallakkadavu P.O,
Thiruvananthapuram-695008
- Applicant
[By Advocates: Ms.Suja P Pillai, Mr.G.Rajan Potayil]
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by Secretary, Ministry of
Telecommunications, Central Government Secretariat,
New Delhi-110002
2. The Secretary, Department of Post, Postal Service Board, Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi-110001
3. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Calicut Division, Kozhikode,
Kerala - 673005
4. The Post Master General, Kerala Circle, PMG Jn,
Thiruvananthapuram 695033
-Respondents
[By Advocate : Mr. S.Ramesh, ACGSC]
The application having been heard on 04.12.2025, the Tribunal on
21.01.2026 delivered the following order:
Deepa S 2026.01.21 13:09:26+05'30'
O.A.No.531/2023 2
ORDER
Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member Applicant was a Postman in Calicut Head Post Office appointed under Annexure-A1 order dated 24.12.2020. That order was issued by the 3 rd respondent pursuant to Annexure-A2 order dated 11.12.2020 on compassionate grounds in relaxation of normal Recruitment Rules. The applicant's father Anilkumar was a Postman in Kowdiar Post Office in Thiruvananthapuram division; after he had died in harness, the applicant was appointed under Annexure-A1 on certain conditions. Later, invoking Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, the 3 rd respondent terminated his service after giving one month notice period. Against that order, the applicant filed Annexure-A6 representation before the 4th respondent.
2. Later, since the Annxure-A6 representation was not considered, the applicant approached the Tribunal with O.A.439/2022. The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. on 11.07.2023 directing to consider and dispose of the representation within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Accordingly, Annexure-A8 order was passed rejecting his plea. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:
Deepa S 2026.01.21 13:09:26+05'30' O.A.No.531/2023 3 "(i) To quash Annexure A8 impugned order of the 3rd respondent department whereby the applicant has been terminated from service, being arbitrary, malafide, discriminatory and illegal;
(ii) To direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with retrospective effect from 17/08/2022 with all service benefits including arrears of salary and to regularize the service of the applicant after successful confirmation of probation period for two years as per Annexure-A1 appointment Memo.........."
3. According to the applicant, the Annexure-A5 order is malafide, arbitrary and discriminatory and was passed in utter violation of the Rules, regulations and is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and natural justice. Moreover, the respondents cannot draw the conclusion that the applicant is disqualified and liable to be terminated from service based on police verification reports, Annexures-A9 and A10; the respondent department ought to have considered all relevant aspects and circumstances that the applicant was not aware of the pending criminal cases reported as per Annexure-A9 report. Annexure-A8 order was issued by the 3 rd respondent based on fictional ground is highly irrational, arbitrary and illegal and bears no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by Annexure-A7 order and Annexure-A10 verification report.
Deepa S 2026.01.21 13:09:26+05'30' O.A.No.531/2023 4
4. Further it is submitted that in Annexure-A10 it is stated that the applicant is suitable for appointment, but that was not considered by the respondents.
5. Again, according to the applicant, the District Collector is not the competent authority to decide whether the applicant is suitable for service or not under the Government of India. The only duty cast upon the District Collector is to co-ordinate the verification compliance as requested by the respondents. Therefore, the advice given by the District Collector in Annexure-A9 report is irrational and liable to be ignored. In fact the applicant was not aware of the pending cases mentioned in Annexure-A9 report while he submitted Annexure-A4 attestation form. There is no willful suppression of material facts on the side of the applicant. Column 15(1)(a) to (g) remained unfilled as the applicant was under the wrong notion that there was no criminal case pending against him at the time of submission of Annexure-A4 format. The applicant came to know of the pending cases only after getting information through Annexure-A9 report. Soon after he took initiative to contest the criminal cases, CC 1957/2018 and CC 85/2022. Annexure-A10 reveals that the applicant was absolved from all criminal cases registered against him.
Deepa S 2026.01.21 13:09:26+05'30' O.A.No.531/2023 5
6. To sum up, the applicant submits that while submitting Annexure- A4 attestation form, he was not aware of the pendency of the criminal cases, there is no suppression of material facts, immediately after receipt of Annexure-A9 report when he knew about the pendency of two cases against him, he took steps for getting it disposed of and thus Annexure-A10 report was given, but Annexure-A8 has been issued without considering Annexure- A10 and therefore the applicant has sought the aforestated reliefs.
7. On behalf of the respondents, the 3 rd respondent filed reply contesting the O.A. and denying the allegations. The sum and substance of the contentions in the reply is that after the appointment of the applicant as Postman in Calicut Division, through Annexure-R1 the District Collector Thiruvananthapuram was requested to furnish the antecedents of the applicant. Accordingly, the District Collector forwarded Annexure-A9 report along with Annexure-R2, following which Annexure-R3/A8 order was passed by the 4th respondent on 06.10.2023 denying the contentions of the applicant. Thus the order of this Tribunal, Annexure-A7 was complied with rejecting the contentions of the applicant.
8. According to the respondents, the applicant was bound to give all necessary details in the attestation form. It has come out that he had Deepa S 2026.01.21 13:09:26+05'30' O.A.No.531/2023 6 furnished false information and suppressed material facts regarding the pendency of the criminal cases registered against him. In the Annexure-A4 it was undertaken that furnishing false information/suppression of factual information in the form would be a disqualification. Through Annexure-A9 it came out that there were seven cases pending against the applicant, which was the sufficient reason for terminating the applicant from service. He is guilty of furnishing false information and suppression of material facts. Annexure-R3 was issued after taking all the aspects into consideration and therefore the applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Relying on the decision in Union of India and others v. Sukhen Chandra Das [(2008) 17 SCC 125] it was submitted that termination in exercise of Powers under Section 5(1) of CCS(Temporary Service) Rules is neither punitive nor stigmatic in nature.
9. Applicant filed a rejoinder reiterating that he was selected and appointed as Postman, had undergone training and had a blemishless service, that subsequent to Annexure-A9, Annexure-A10 report was issued by the Police intimating the disposal of the remaining criminal cases against him, but Annexure-A8 was passed without considering the same.
10. It was also reiterated that the applicant was not able to Deepa S 2026.01.21 13:09:26+05'30' O.A.No.531/2023 7 understand the meaning of the contents in Annexure-A4 attestation form in its strict sense, which is printed in English language; the queries were vague and not specific. The applicant had furnished the details with utmost faith and belief to his limited knowledge and belief. Further it is stated that Annexure-A5 was issued without giving him a show cause notice. It is vitiated by errors of law and liable to be quashed. Annexure-A6 was given before the 4th respondent. But that was disposed of without considering Annexure-A10 report.
11. Further it is submitted that he was included in petty criminal cases, which should not have been taken seriously, that the decision in Sukhen Chandra Das, quoted supra, relied on by the respondents in the reply is not applicable as he did no suppress material facts. He has not suffered any conviction and that he is entitled to be re-inducted in service.
12. The respondents filed additional reply denying the receipt of any such report like Annexure-A10. On receipt of Annexure-A9 and for other reasons the Annexure-R3/A8 order was passed. According to them, there is no provision for obtaining any reply from a temporary Government servant before passing orders. From Annexure-A9 itself it is clear that he had involved in seven criminal cases during the period between 2015 and 2020. The Deepa S 2026.01.21 13:09:26+05'30' O.A.No.531/2023 8 contention of the applicant that he was involved only in petty criminal cases is liable to be rejected. It is clear that he had concealed all the criminal cases registered against him, convictions, punishments suffered etc. That is against the undertaking given in Annexure-A4/4. All the contentions were seriously considered and he was terminated from service after ascertaining his past conduct and therefore the O.A .is liable to be dismissed.
13. We heard the learned counsel on both sides.
14. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that from Annexures-A10 and A19 it is very clear that the applicant stands absolved of all criminal cases and that he has been found fit and such a report was placed before the District Collector. But the 4th respondent has not considered the same and therefore he is entitled to be re-inducted in service.
15. Moreover, the learned counsel submitted that the applicant is only a Matriculate. He could understand the words used in the Annexure-A4 attestation form, he is virtually an ignorant person, not well versed in English language and therefore, non-disclosure cannot be taken as suppression of material facts. Moreover, according to the learned counsel, no allegation has been raised against the applicant after commencement of the service. The trivial cases registered against him during adolescence cannot be taken Deepa S 2026.01.21 13:09:26+05'30' O.A.No.531/2023 9 seriously. The respondents have not considered Annexure-A6 representation in its correct perspective. Annexures-A10 and A19 were not at all considered by the 4th respondent.
16. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that from Annexure-A9 itself it is clear that he had involved in seven criminal cases, out of which five were disposed of already and the remaining two were pending. It is also clear that he is guilty of suppression of material facts, which is sufficient to say that he has moved the Tribunal without good faith. The learned counsel also pointed out that except one case, in all the cases he has pleaded guilty and suffered conviction and in one case the case was disposed of since the High Court had quashed the same. Learned Standing Counsel also relied on various authorities guiding the subject.
17. Apparently, the applicant is the beneficiary of the compassionate appointment on the demise of his father Anilkumar who had passed away on 27.05.2011 while working as Postman in Kowdiar Post Office in Thiruvananthapuram Division. The applicant was appointed as Postman in Calicut Division under Annexure-A1 order dated 24.12.2020 in relaxation of the normal Recruitment Rules on the basis of Annexure-A2 order dated 10.11.2020. He was on probation for a period of two years.
Deepa S 2026.01.21 13:09:26+05'30' O.A.No.531/2023 10
18. From Annexure-A1 order itself it is clear that the appointment was liable to be terminated at any time by a month's notice in writing either by the appointing authority or any other competent authority. Similarly, clause (f) of Annexure-A1 reads thus:
"The appointment is provisional and subject to satisfactory completion of prescribed courses of training and the certificates being verified through proper channels. If the verification reveals that the claim of the candidate belonging to PH/ Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe/ Other Backward Classes (not belong to creamy layer) is false or educational certificates are not genuine or found unfit on Police verification, his/her services shall be terminated forthwith without assigning any further reasons and without prejudice to such action as may be taken under the provisions of Indian Penal Code for production of false certificate."
Meanwhile, he was transferred to Thiruvananthapuram South Postal Division on 25.02.2022.
19. Annexure-R1 shows that the 3rd respondent had addressed the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, as part of recruitment to the cadre of Postman in the department, requesting to collect and forward the antecedents of the applicant verified. Copy of his attestation form, Annexure- A4 and character certificate attested by him were also forwarded to the District Collector. Following his, the District Collector forwarded Annexure-R2 report attaching Annexure-A9 report of the police, which indicated that he Deepa S 2026.01.21 13:09:26+05'30' O.A.No.531/2023 11 had involved in seven criminal cases, as shown below:
1. Valiyathura Police Station Crime No.539/2015 under Sections 294B, 308, 506(1) read with 34 IPC
2. Valiyathura Police Station Crime No.843/2015 under Sections 143,147,148, 149, 294(b), 323, 324 read with 34 IPC
3. Valiyathura Police Station Crime No. 1209/2016 under Sections 294(b). 323, 341, 324, 308, read with 34 IPC.
4. Thumba Police Station Crime No. 1804/2017 under Sections 279 IPC and 185 MV Act.
5. Fort Police Station Crime No. 1101/2015, under Sections 279 IPC and 185 MV Act.
6. Pettah Police Station Crime No.1116/2018, under Sections 119(a) KP Act.
7. Pettah Police Station Crime No 1350/2020, under Sections 188, 269 IPC and 4 (2) (d), 5 of KEDO
20. Annexure-A9 further indicated that except the last two cases, all the cases were disposed of and on that ground the police raised objections in issuing suitability to the applicant.
21. The applicant claims that the Annexure-A8 order was passed without considering Annexure-A10 report of the IGP and Police Commissioner dated 05.08.2022 which indicates that the last two cases also were disposed of, therefore the Annexure-A8 did not reflect the actual position and disposal of all the cases in view of the recommendation of the police in Annexure-A10 Deepa S 2026.01.21 13:09:26+05'30' O.A.No.531/2023 12 he is entitled to be issued 'suitability' for employment.
22. From the following table, details of cases registered against him, offences alleged and its outcome can easily be discerned.
Sl Details of crime Offences alleged Outcome
No
1 Crime No.539/2015 of Under Sections 294B, 308, ST 128/2016 of the Juvenile
Justice Board - found guilty
Valiyathura Police 506(1) read with 34 IPC
and released on probation for
Station one year (Annexure-A16 dt.
23.06.2017 and Annexure-A9)
2 Crime No. 843/2015 of Under Sections ST 51/2017 of the Juvenile
Justice Board. Pleaded guilty -
Valiyathura Police 143,147,148, 149, 294(b),
found guilty and fined
Station 323, 324 read with 34 IPC Rs.1000/- (Annexures-A9 and
A15)
3 Crime No. 1209/2016 of Under Sections 294(b) Quashed by the High Court on
16.01.2019 since the defacto
Valiyathura Police 323, 341, 324, 308, read
complainant reported
Station with 34 IPC. settlement.(Annexures-A9 and
A14)
4 Crime No. 1804/2017 of Under Sections 279 IPC ST 518/2018 of JFCM-V,
Thiruvananthapuram fined
Thumba Police Station and 185 MV Act.
Rs.1,000/-(Annexure-A9)
5 Crime No. 1101/2015 Under Sections 279 IP C ST 186/2015 of JFCM-II,
Thiruvananthapuram found
of Fort Police Station and 185 MV Act.
guilty and fined. Fine remitted
(Annexure-A9)
6 Crime No.1116/2018 of Under Sections 119(a) KP CC 1957/2018 of ACJM Court,
Thiruvananthapuram fined
Pettah Police Station Act
Rs.750/- on
25.07.2022(Annexures-A10,
A13 and A18)
7 Crime No 1350/2020 of Under Sections 188, 269 CC 85/2022 of ACJM Court,
Thiruvananthapuram fined
Pettah Police Station IPC and 4 (2) (d) and 5 of
Rs.500/- on 25.07.2022
Kerala Epidemic Diseases (Annexures-A10, A11, A12 and
A17)
Ordinance, 2020
Deepa S 2026.01.21 13:09:26+05'30'
O.A.No.531/2023 13
23. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the 4 th respondent had acted mechanically without considering Annexures-A10 and A19 reports, which would indicate that the applicant stood absolved of all the criminal cases and all the cases were disposed of and therefore he should have been granted suitability, he should not have been terminated in a most unreasonable manner. This has been disputed by the learned Standing Counsel.
24. There cannot be any dispute that the applicant was appointed as Postman under compassionate appointment scheme on 24.12.2000 and later, under Annexure-A5 he was terminated from service with effect from 20.08.2022. Even though Annexure-A6 representation was submitted, under Annexure-A8, that was considered and rejected by the 4 th respondent on various considerations.
25. Now the contention that the applicant should not have been terminated in a most mechanical manner, is liable to be rejected for various reasons.
26. Firstly, the factum of submission of Annexure-A4 attestation form by the applicant is not disputed. Annexure-A4 contains a warning clause reading thus:
Deepa S 2026.01.21 13:09:26+05'30' O.A.No.531/2023 14 "1. The fumishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Attestation form would be disqualification, and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government.
2. If detained, arrested, prosecuted, bound down fined, convicted, debarred acquitted etc subsequent to the completion and submission of this form, the details should be communicated immediately to the authorities to whom the Attestation form has been sent early, failing which it will be deemed to be a suppression of factual information.
3. If the fact that false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of any factual information in the Attestation form comes to notice at any time during the service of a person his services would be liable to be terminated".
27. The attestation form further indicates that the applicant had passed SSLC in 2003 and had undergone Plus Two course in Government Higher Secondary School, Pettah during 2013-2015. That means, he had studied upto Plus Two. In column 15 of Annexure-A4 he was specifically asked as to whether he had ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention, fined by a Court of law, convicted by a Court of law for any offence, any case is pending against him at the time of filing the attestation form, whether he was discharged, expelled, withdrawn from training institution under the Government or otherwise, he has given answer 'No' against these queries. Further, it is stated as follow:
Deepa S 2026.01.21 13:09:26+05'30' O.A.No.531/2023 15 "If the answer to any of the above mentioned question is 'Yes' give full particulars of the case/arrest/ detention/ fine/ conviction/ sentence/ punishment etc and/or the nature of the case pending in the Court/University/Educational Authority etc at the time of filling up this attestation form."
Further, he has signed below the statement that:
"I am fully aware that by providing false information or suppressing material information while filling this form, the authorities have full right to terminate my appointment letter and I am also liable for appropriate criminal/civil action as consequence.
I am not aware of any circumstances which might impair my fitness for employment under Government."
28. In other words, the applicant claimed that he bore a clean record of the past without being involved in any criminal case or bad antecedent. But the Annexure-A9 report forwarded by the District Collector clearly disclosed that he had involved in seven criminal cases out of which five were disposed of and two were pending at the time of filing the report on 02.06.2022.
29. In fact the applicant does not dispute these facts. He only wanted to convince the Tribunal that he had given Annexure-A4 without understanding the meaning and contents, which is in English, he was not well versed in English, was not aware of the ramifications etc. But it is a clear case Deepa S 2026.01.21 13:09:26+05'30' O.A.No.531/2023 16 of furnishing false information and suppression of material facts despite the fact that he had involved in seven criminal cases during the period between 2015 and 2020, as tabulated above.
30. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that he was not in a position to understand the contents of Annexure-A4, there was no material suppression etc. can be swallowed only with a pinch of salt. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, he has studied upto 12 th standard, he had good score in English in SSLC with B Plus grade, marks between 70% and 79%. Therefore, it cannot be believed that he had given negative answer to the particulars against column 15 in Annexure-A4 without understanding its ramifications. It was not an act done in good faith; dishonesty is writ large in the conduct.
31. In this connection, the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v. Ram Ratan Yadav [AIR 2003 SC 1709] require to be highlighted:
"The object of requiring information in columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form and certification thereafter by the candidate was to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to continue in service. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service. The employer having regard to the Deepa S 2026.01.21 13:09:26+05'30' O.A.No.531/2023 17 nature of the employment and all other aspects had discretion to terminate his services, which is made expressly clear in para 9 of the offer of appointment. The purpose of seeking information as per columns 12 and 13 was not to find out either the nature or gravity of the offence or the result of a criminal case ultimately. The information in the said columns was sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the respondent to continue in service or not. The High Court, in our view, has failed to see this aspect of the matter. It went wrong in saying that the criminal case had been subsequently withdrawn and that the offences, in which the respondent was alleged to have been involved, were also not of serious nature.........."
Hon'ble Apex Court continued as follow:
"The respondent accepted the offer of appointment subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein with his eyes wide open. Para 9 of the said memorandum extracted above in clear terms kept the respondent informed that the suppression of any information may lead to dismissal from service. In the attestation form, the respondent has certified that the information given by him is correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief; if he could not understand the contents of column nos. 12 and 13, he could not certify so. Having certified that the information given by him is correct and complete, his version cannot be accepted........ "
The above passages aptly apply to the facts of the case.
32. The decision in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others [(2016) 8 SCC 471] is considered to be a major decision on the subject. In paragraph 2 Deepa S 2026.01.21 13:09:26+05'30' O.A.No.531/2023 18 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
"2. This Court in Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P. [(2012) 8 SCC 748] while referring the matter, had expressed the opinion that in case an appointment order has been secured fraudulently, the appointment is voidable at the option of the employer and the employee cannot get any equity in his favour and no estoppel is created against the employer only by the fact that the employee has continued in service for a number of years. It has been further observed that if appointment is secured on forged documents, it would amount to misrepresentation and fraud. The employer has a right to terminate the services on suppression of important information or giving false information, having regard to nature of employment. Verification of character and antecedents is important if the employer has found an incumbent to be undesirable for appointment to a disciplined force. It cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Court thus further opined that suppression of material information necessary for verification of character/antecedents will have a clear bearing on character and antecedents of a candidate in relation to his continuity in service and such a person cannot claim a right for appointment or continuity in service........."
After making elaborate discussion the Court has summarised its 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 Deepa S 2026.01.21 13:09:26+05'30' O.A.No.531/2023 19 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 Deepa S 2026.01.21 13:09:26+05'30' O.A.No.531/2023 20 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 case.
38.7 In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.
38.8 If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime............."
33. As we pointed out, the Annexure-A4 attestation form was submitted on 10.12.2020. All the seven cases were registered against the applicant before the filing of the attestation form. Annexure-A13 shows that he was arrested on 24.08.2018 at 4 pm. Similarly, the documents produced by the applicant indicate that except in Annexure-A14, where the case was Deepa S 2026.01.21 13:09:26+05'30' O.A.No.531/2023 21 quashed by the High Court on being settled, all other cases ended in conviction either after trial or pleading guilty by the applicant.
34. Referring to Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the conviction by the Juvenile Justice Board will not work as a disqualification for the applicant who was a juvenile at that time. We are not on that question. We cannot be persuaded to believe that the applicant was a puppet, not aware of the registration of seven criminal cases against him during the period between 2015 and 2020. The applicant was born on 13.12.1997 and became major on 13.12.2015. May be one or two cases might have been registered during the period when he was juvenile so that the findings entered by the Juvenile Justice Board cannot be taken as a disqualification for future employment. But here the material question is whether he had suppressed material facts before entering in service. Annexure-A4 clearly indicates that he did not disclose vital aspects and that was made known only after ascertaining the antecedents through the revenue authorities by the 3 rd respondent. That would clearly indicate element of bad faith on the part of the applicant.
35. It was also pointed out that there is no moral turpitude in the cases involved, that he did not suffer any conviction etc. Both the arguments Deepa S 2026.01.21 13:09:26+05'30' O.A.No.531/2023 22 are liable to be rejected. As stated earlier, even if we ignore the first two cases that might have happened during the period of juvenility of the applicant, the other cases were registered after he had attained majority. Atleast there are two cases in which he was booked under Section 279 IPC and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In both the cases he pleaded guilty and was convicted. The allegation seems to be that he had driven the vehicle under a drunken bout or under the influence of drugs. It cannot be stated that, such acts did not involve moral turpitude.
36. Even other wise, as stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not the severity of the crime, what is important is whether the candidate has suppressed material facts from the eye of employer before entering service. Here, all circumstances overwhelmingly suggest that he had not disclosed these vital aspects in the Annexure-A4 form and the reasons stated are neither satisfactory nor convincing.
37. The respondents had contended that they had not received Annexure-A10 at the time of passing Annexure-A8 order. In order to rebut this contention Annexure-A19 was produced. But Annexure-A19 was sent only on 28.03.2025, much after issuing Annexure-A8. Even if Annexure-A10 and A19 are taken, still the opinion of the respondents cannot change. It is Deepa S 2026.01.21 13:09:26+05'30' O.A.No.531/2023 23 clear that there were numerous cases registered against the applicant, which were not disclosed at the time of filing the attestation form, which was not an act in good faith on the part of the applicant.
38. Moreover, Annexures-A8 and R3 are self same documents, produced by the applicant and respondents respectively. But close scrutiny of Annexure-A8 and Annexure-R3 would show that Annexure-A8 is a truncated document. In Annexure-A8, paragraph 4.3 is not fully available. It is clear from Annexure-R3 that a full page of that order is missing in Annexure-A8, which has not been noticed by the respondents also. We may assume that it is not a purposeful omission. Whatever it may be, Annexure-A8 is a truncated document.
39. From Annexure-R3 it is clear that the 4th respondent has considered the non-disclosure of the pendency of the cases and suppression of material facts as well. Even if Annexures-A10 and A19 were not considered, we cannot remit the matter for that purpose, that cannot have any impact on the final decision of the 4th respondent since non-disclosure of material facts, notwithstanding the results of the cases, has been considered in Annexure-R3.
40. As we noticed earlier, in Annexure-A9 it is shown that two criminal cases were pending. But, going by Annexures-A10 and A19 Deepa S 2026.01.21 13:09:26+05'30' O.A.No.531/2023 24 subsequently on being pleaded guilty, after accepting the plea of guilt, those cases were disposed of by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, imposing fine. It Is very evident that those disposals were made after the issue of Annexure-A5 order. That means, on receipt of Annexure-A5 the applicant had hurriedly approached the Court and got the matter disposed of by pleading guilty. In both the cases he was convicted on admitting the plea.
41. The learned counsel for the applicant also argued that Annexure- A5 is bad since it was issued without affording an opportunity of being heard. That argument cannot sustain in the light of the undertaking given by the applicant in Annexure-A4 as well as clause (f) of Annexure-A1, quoted supra.
42. There is substance in the argument that the respondents are not bound by the report given by the revenue/police authorities. The respondents had collected details of the character and antecedents of the applicants through them. In the process, copy of Annexure-A4 etc. were forwarded to the District Collector for verifying the correctnes of the statements made by the applicant. It is for the employer to decide on the suitability or otherwise of the candidate. After collecting inputs like Annexure-A9, the 4th respondent has correctly found him not suitable for Deepa S 2026.01.21 13:09:26+05'30' O.A.No.531/2023 25 employment. We find no reason to interfere with the finding.
On consideration of the facts in toto, the applicant is not entitled to succeed. The Original Application lacks merits and is dismissed. No costs.
(Dated, this the 21st day of January, 2026)
Mr. BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds
Deepa S 2026.01.21 13:09:26+05'30'
O.A.No.531/2023 26
List of Annexures
Annexure A1- The true copy of the Appointment Memo No.B3/60/Dlg/03/2020-21 dated 24/12/2020 issued by the 3rd respondent Annexure-A2 The true copy of the Appointment Memo No.B3/60/Dlg/03/2020-21 dated 11/12/2020 issued by the 3rd respondent Annexure A3- The true copy of SSLC bearing Reg. No. 121332 March/2013 issued by the Board of Examination Annexure A4- The true copy of Attestation Form dated 10/12/2020 submitted by the applicant Annexure A5- The true copy of the Memo No B3/Postman/Disc.dated 18/07/2022 issued by the 3rd respondent Annexure A6- The true copy of appeal representation dated 15/11/2022 submitted to the 4th respondent Annexure A7 The true copy of the Order dated 11/07/2023 in OA No. 439/2022 delivered by this Tribunal Annexure A8 - Impugned Order No. Staff/9-1/NR/2023 dated 06/10/2023 issued by the 3rd respondent Annexure A9 The true copy of the letter dated 07/06/2022 issued by the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram to the 3rd respondent Annexure A10 The true copy of the police verification report No.SB/105/CVR/2021-TC dated 05/08/2022 submitted to the District Collector Annexure-A11- The true copy of the case status in CC No 200085/27-ACJM, case disposed Annexure A12 True copy of F.I.R No.1350 of Pettah Police Station Annexure A13- True copy of Final Report in Crime No.1116/2016 of Pettah Deepa S 2026.01.21 13:09:26+05'30' O.A.No.531/2023 27 Police Station, filed in ACJM AnnexureA14- True copy of Order dated 16.01.2019 in Crl.M.C No.429/2019, High Court of Kerala AnnexureA15- Certified copy of Judgment dated 10.04.2018 in S.T No.51/2017, Juvenile Justice Board, Thiruvananthapuram Annexure A16- Certified copy of Judgment dated 23.06.2017 in S.T No. 128/2016, Juvenile Justice Board, Thiruvananthapuram Annexure A17. Acknowledgment receipt dated 25/7/2022 Annexure A18. Acknowledgment receipt dated 25/7/2022 Annexure-A19-The letter dated 28.03.2025 issued by the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram addressed to the 3rd Respondent Annexure-A20- True copy of the case status printout showing multiple adjournments in O.A. No. 531/2023 Annexure R1. True copy of the letter addressed to the District Collector dated 30.12.2020 Annexure R2True copy of the letter of District Collector, Trivandurm dated 07/06/2022 Annexure R-3True copy of Memo no Staff/9-1/NR/2023 dated 6-10-23 ************ Deepa S 2026.01.21 13:09:26+05'30'