Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Chirag Goyal vs M/O Defence on 25 February, 2026
1
O.A. No. 278/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
...
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 278/2016
Order reserved on: 22.01.2026
Date of order: 25.02.2026
CORAM
HON'BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. LOKRANJAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Chirag Goyal Son of Sh. Satish Chand Goyal, Age around 24
years, Resident of C/o Goyal Dal & Oil Mill, Bar Colony, Mahawa
Road, Mandawar, Distt. Dausa, Rajasthan-321609.
...APPLICANT
(By Adv: Shri Mukesh Agarwal)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi.
2. Director General Personnel/EIB, Engineer-in- Chief's Branch,
Integrated HQ of MOD (Army), Kashmir 110011. House, New
Rajaji Marg, Delhi-
3. Chief Engineer, South Western Command, PIN- 908546, C/o-
56 APO.
4. Garrison Engineer, MES, Alwar.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Adv: Shri L.M. Bhardwaj)
YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA
YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=
DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal,
SERIALNUMBER=
4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc03
SINGH 0def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65=
e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone=
7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273
MEENA 119b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@
GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA
2026.03.03 12:27:50+05'30'
2
O.A. No. 278/2016
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)
The present Original Application was filed by the Applicantinter alia - against the impugned Letter dated 14.12.2015 of Respondent No.3 (Chief Engineer, South Western Command),whereby in pursuance of the Applicant's representation dated 26.11.2015 to be permitted to join on the post of Junior Engineer (JE)-(Civil) at the Office of RespondentNo.4[Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering Service (MES), Alwar], an extension in joining time was granted till 06.04.2016 due to pendency of a criminal case against the Applicant although he had represented that he expected to be exonerated in that case ; and also, against not allowing the Applicant to join on the post of JE-(Civil) at the office of RespondentNo.4 in response to his prayer vide application dated 03.03.2016, but instead conveying vide impugned Letter dated 15.03.2016 of the Office of Respondent No.3 that the Applicant's case had been forwarded to the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) New Delhi by Respondent No.2 (Director-General, Personnel/EIB, Integrated HQ of MOD (Army)] for clarification based on the documents submitted by him ; and also further, against the impugned communication dated 12.05.2016 of the Office of Respondent No.3 conveying the cancellation of the offer of appointment previously made vide letter dated 07.10.2015 for the post of JE-(Civil) in MES since there had been no intimation regarding the Applicant having been acquitted/exonerated by the competent Court of Law by the extended last date of joining, i.e. 06.04.2016.
2. Based on the pleadings of the parties on record in the case, the relevant matrix of facts had emerged to be as follows YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc03 SINGH 0def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273 MEENA 119b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.03.03 12:27:50+05'30' 3 O.A. No. 278/2016 briefly.The SSC had published a notice in the Employment News dated 01.03.2014,to invite applications for the post of JE-(Civil, Mechanical, Electrical, Quantity Surveying and Contract) Examination-2014 to be submitted before 28.03.2014. The Applicant, who had qualified as B.E. in Civil Engineering,had also applied and purportedly appeared at the Preliminary Written Examination held on 25.05.2014 and the Main Examination held on 18.01.2015and had qualified at those. Consequently, he had been called for the interviewscheduled on 20.03.2015, along with the correctly filled-up Bio-data Formenclosed therewith, including the declaration incorporated at Column No.20, inter alia with prescribed documents in original. The Applicant'sDeclaration dated 20.03.2015 accordingly had incorporated inter alia that -
"... ...
(iv) I also declare that I do not stand debarred by SSC/UPSC as on date and have never been convicted by any court of law. I also declare that no charge-sheet is pending against me in any court of law. Further declare that I have never been dismissed or removed from Govt. Service or my service been terminated during probation. ......
(viii) I hereby declare that all statements made in this application are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that in the event of any information being found suppressed/false or incorrect or ineligibility being detected before or after the examination, my candidature/appointment is liable to becancelled."
3. Consequently, the offer of appointment dated 07.10.2015 had been issued to the Applicant for the post of JE-(Civil). However, prior to his joining in pursuance thereof, it was found that an FIR No.166/14 dated 10.04.2014 under Sections[147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323 and 307] read with Section 34 of the IPC had been filed against the Applicantinter alia other accused persons at Police Station (PS) Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur ; and that the police had already filed a related Charge-Sheet before the competent Court and the trial was ongoing - both,at the time of YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc03 SINGH 0def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273 MEENA 119b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.03.03 12:27:50+05'30' 4 O.A. No. 278/2016 the Applicant's furnishing the above-mentioned declaration dated 20.03.2015 as well as his reporting for joining on 04.11.2015. Upon not being allowed to join as a result, the Applicant had submitted the representation dated 26.11.2015 to Respondent No.3 - along with a notarized undertaking dated 24.11.2015 stating that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case and the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur had granted him bail on 24.05.2014 - and sought thereby to be allowed to join, inter alia since he was innocent and the decision of the Court was most likely to come in next 3 or 4 months. Consequently, vide the impugned Letter dated 14.12.2015 of Respondent No.3, an extension in joining time was granted till 06.04.2016 as per policy ;however with the condition that since the matter was sub-judice, his joining was subject to clearance from the Court of Law and higher HQs.
4. Meanwhile, the Applicant had filed earlier the Ο.Α. No.090/2016 before this Tribunal against such actions of Respondents, but the same had been withdrawn on 12.02.2016, with liberty to file a fresh Ο.Α. after 06.04.2016. Later, when the Applicanthad requested RespondentNo.3 on 03.03.2016 to be permitted to join on the post of JE-(Civil) in the office of RespondentNo.4, it had been informed videLetter dated 15.03.2016 of Respondent No.3, that the Applicant'scase had been forwarded to SSC, New Delhi by the Office of Respondent No.2 for clarification based on the documents submitted by him. Eventually, vide the impugned Letter dated 12.05.2016 of Respondent No.3, it had inter alia been conveyed that since there was no intimation from the Applicant regarding his having been acquitted/exonerated by the Court of Law by 06.04.2016 - i.e. the extended last date of joining allowed previously as per the YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc03 SINGH 0def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273 MEENA 119b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.03.03 12:27:50+05'30' 5 O.A. No. 278/2016 existing policy, which had already expired - therefore, the said offer of appointment dated 07.10.2015 to the Applicant for the post of JE-(Civil) in MES was cancelled thereby.
5. The Applicant had filed the present O.A. to seek the substantive reliefsthat by an appropriate order or direction, the actions of Respondents vide impugned Letters dated 14.12.2015, that dated 15.03.2016 and that dated 12.05.2016 be quashed and set aside ; and theRespondents be directed to allow the Applicant to join duty on the post of JE-(Civil) in the office of GE Alwar, i.e. Respondent No.4, in pursuance of the offer of appointment dated 07.10.2015, with all consequential benefits.
6. It was the essential case of the Applicant that he had not suppressed any material facts, but had voluntarily disclosed to the concerned authority about the pending charge-sheet/ongoing trial in a criminal case against him in the Court of Law at the stage of his reporting for joining on 04.11.2015 ; and that he had been falsely implicated in the said criminal case, mere pendency of which cannot be a ground to deny him entry into Government service. At the stage of arguments, the learned Counsel for the Applicanthad also sought to present that although the Applicant was eventually convicted in the said criminal case, that was for trivial offences ; hence, theRespondents may ignore the related non-declaration of the related information by the Applicant.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for Respondents had agreed only to the matters of fact on record while not admitting to other contentions of the Applicant. It had been particularly contended that while furnishing his Biodata Form at the stage of his interview on 20.03.2015, the Applicant had furnished a wrong declaration vide Item No.20 thereof, inter alia that no charge-
YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc03 SINGH 0def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273 MEENA 119b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.03.03 12:27:50+05'30' 6 O.A. No. 278/2016 sheet was pending against him in any Court of law - whereas in fact, an FIR No.166/2014 dated 10.04.2014 had been registered at PS Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur for offences under Sections - (341, 323, 342, 307, 458 read with Section 34) of the IPC ; in which he had been arrested at first and had later been released on bail vide Order dated 30.05.2014 of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench ; and the charge-sheet against him was submitted and cognizance of the same was taken on 09.10.2014 by the Ld. Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate No.30, Jaipur Metro, which got transferred to the Sessions Court of Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) No. 8, Jaipur Metro; and thus, the said charge-sheet was pending against him since 09.10.2014, i.e. from before 20.03.2015 - the date of submission of the declaration to the contrary by the Applicant. Thus, it was evident that the Applicant had suppressed material information and made a false declaration during the interview process, prior to being selected and the offer of appointment came to be issued based thereupon. It was further submitted that later the Applicant had appeared to join in the post of JE-(Civil) in the Office of Respondent No.4 ; when it had emerged that the aforesaid charge-sheet had been filed against him (as Accused No.1) ; and the cognizance of the same had been taken on 09.10.2014 ; and the matter was pending in the Sessions Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 8, Jaipur Metro in the Sessions Case No.15/2014. On the written representation dated 26.11.2015of the Applicant that the said case against him was false and fabricated and that the decision of the Court was most likely to come in next 3 or 4 months, Respondent No.3 had vide the impugned Letter dated 14.12.2015 granted an extension in joining time till 06.04.2016 as per extant policy - only to enable the Applicant to obtain his acquittal as per his claimed innocence - however with the condition that since the matter was sub-judice, YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA his joining then would also be subject to YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc03 SINGH 0def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273 MEENA 119b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.03.03 12:27:50+05'30' 7 O.A. No. 278/2016 clearance from the Court of Law and higher HQs.While the matter had also been referred later to the SSC for clarification, eventually the Applicant had failed to furnish any proof regarding acquittal till 06.04.2016, i.e. the extended last date for joining. Hence, he had been informed vide the impugned Letter dated 12.05.2016 of Respondent No.3 that the offer of appointment for the post of JE- (Civil) in MES dated 07.10.2015 had been cancelled.
8. We have examined the related facts as on record. It is found that the verification of the antecedents of the candidates called for interview was a part of the selection process and the related Declaration was included at Serial No.20 in the Biodata Form to be submitted by all candidates called for the interview, including the Applicant. The Applicant had declared vide the clause-(iv) thereof, inter alia that no charge-sheet was pending against him in any court of law. The said Declaration signed by the Applicant on 20.03.2015 had also clearly included vide the clause-(viii) that "I hereby declare that all statements made in this application are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that in the event of any information being found suppressed/false or incorrect or ineligibility being detected before or after the examination, my candidature/appointment is liable to be cancelled."
Thus, regarding the Applicant's case that he had disclosed the fact of the pendency of the criminal charge-sheet/case against him in a Court of Law voluntarily,when he had appeared for joining on 04.11.2015 pursuant to offer of appointment dated 07.10.2015, it clearly emerged that the verification of the antecedents of the candidates was required to be done prior to issuing any offer of appointment itself, since the same had been incorporated in the Biodata Form to be submitted at the stage of interview. The Applicant's notSINGH YOGENDRA declaring MEENA the pendency of the criminal charge-
YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc03 SINGH 0def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273 MEENA 119b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.03.03 12:27:50+05'30' 8 O.A. No. 278/2016 sheet before a Court of Law at the stage of interview on 20.03.2015 was material towards the offer of appointment that had been issued to him pursuantly on 07.10.2015.
9. In light of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the claim of the Applicant of having informed regarding the pendency of the criminal charge-sheet before a Court of Law later when he had reported for joining on 04.11.2015, even if correct, would not erase the factum of his concealment/false declaration at the material stage, i.e. the interview on 20.03.2015 ; and cannot in any case tantamount to the Applicant being saved from the clause-(viii) of the said Declaration (supra). Therefore, his claim of having an unfettered right for appointmentbased on the offer dated 07.10.2015, despite his said false declaration and concealment of relevant facts at the material stage did not stand.
10. Moreover, the arguments of the learned Counsels for the parties had been heard. The learned Counsels sought to update the facts/developments during the pendency of the present O.A. before this Tribunal, which were taken on record. The learned Counsel for Applicant had furnished the Judgment dated 28.09.2016 of the Sessions Court of Ld. ASJ No. 8, Jaipur Metro in the Sessions Case No.15/2014 inter alia against the Applicant in the present O.A. as accused for offences under Sections - (341, 323, 342, 307, 458 read with Section 34) of the IPC. Relevantly thereby, it was shown from the said Order dated 28.09.2016 that while the Applicant had been acquitted of the charges under Sections (307, 342, 458 read with Section 34) of the IPC ; but he was found guilty of the offences charged under Sections (323 & 341) of the IPC.After considering the relevant aspects duly, the Court of Ld. ASJ No.8, Jaipur Metro had ordered that consequent toMEENA YOGENDRA SINGH the charges being proved under Section (341 YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc03 SINGH 0def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273 MEENA 119b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.03.03 12:27:50+05'30' 9 O.A. No. 278/2016 & 323) of IPC against him, the Applicantwould be released on probation, provided he executed a Probation Bond with surety of like amount in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- for keeping peaceful behaviour for a period of two years ; and if the conditions of probation were violated he would appear before the Court voluntarily to undergo punishment as per orders of the Court. However, the learned Counsel for the Applicant had not informed of the outcome of even further litigation in appeal at the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in this regard ; the information of which was provided by the learned Counsel for the Respondents - who had in addition furnished a copy of the related Judgment/Order dated 03.07.2023 of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur which was taken on record. Thereby, it was shown relevantly that in deciding the S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2313 filed by the State of Rajasthan and the S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2314 filed by the Applicant in the present O.A. as the Accused-Appellant aggrieved from the Order dated 28.09.2016 in the Sessions Case No.15/2014 [arising out of FIR No.166/2014 PS Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur(South)] passed by the Ld. ASJ No.8, Jaipur Metro - the Hon'ble High Court had held that the involvement inter alia of Chirag Goyal (Applicant in present O.A.) was proved to commit offence under Section 341 & 323 as having contributed in wrongful restraint and also use of criminal force, thereby inflicting injuries on PW-2 and PW-4 therein ; and therefore, the appeal preferred by Chirag Goyal was devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed ; and had dismissed the appeal preferred by Chirag Goyal (Applicant in present O.A.).
11. In light of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the Applicant's written submission dated to Respondent authorities vide the that he was innocent had been falsely implicated in the said criminal YOGENDRAcase had eventually been proven to the contrary SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc03 SINGH 0def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273 MEENA 119b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.03.03 12:27:50+05'30' 10 O.A. No. 278/2016 against him in the competent Court of Law - viz., the Court of the Ld. ASJ No.8, Jaipur Metro and he was found guilty of the offences charged under Sections (323 & 341) of the IPC ; and the appeal preferred by the Applicant in the present O.A. against the same had also been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur while holding that his involvement was proved in committing offences under Section 341 & 323 by having contributed in wrongful restraint and also use of criminal force, thereby inflicting injuries on certain persons (PW-2 and PW-4 in the criminal case). We are of the view that the claim of the Applicant of being innocent and falsely implicated in the criminal case/charge-sheet - which was pending before a Court of Law at the time of declaration at the stage of interview on 20.03.2015 and later when he had reported for joining on 04.11.2015 - was proven to be incorrect eventually in the competent Court of Law as well as in Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur. Therefore, the Applicant in the present O.A. had failed to establish his claim of having been falsely implicated in the said criminal case, much less in doing so by 06.04.2016, which was the extended last date allowed by Respondent authority for consequential joining in the post for which the offer of appointment dated 07.10.2015 had been issued in the circumstances previously detailed at length.
12. Regarding the argument of the learned Counsel for the Applicant that he had been convicted for a trivial offence, it is our observation at the outset that although this Tribunal is not a Court of criminal law nor is a question of criminal nature per se being adjudicated by us, yet we were compelled to look at the limited question of whether the Applicant's concealment/false declaration on 20.03.2015 was in relation to a trivial criminal case, in light of the related defence being forwarded by the YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc03 SINGH 0def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273 MEENA 119b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.03.03 12:27:50+05'30' 11 O.A. No. 278/2016 learned Counsel for the Applicant. We deemed it instructive to rely upon the Judgment & Order dated 31.03.1966 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 3-Judge Bench, in Criminal Appeal No.209 of 1964, in the case of Mrs. Veeda Menezes vs Yusuf Khan and Anr. [1966 AIR 1773], whereinthe principles to determine inter alia whether an act was 'trivial' had been settled in the light of the relevant provisions of the IPC. It had thus been settled that an offence is trivial if the harm is so slight that no person ofordinarysense or temper would complain of such harm ; and whether an offence is trivial must depend on thenature of the injury, the position of the parties, theknowledge or intention with which the offending act is doneand other related matters. In the case vide the present O.A. before this Tribunal, the circumstances detailed in the related FIR No.166/2014 at PS Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur (South) would show from a plain reading that the actions of the Applicant were deliberate and malicious with the intent of causing injury ; and were not in the nature of minor, everyday inconvenience that would cause only such a slight harm that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain about or that would be too insignificant to merit legal action. Further, upon perusal of the Order dated 28.09.2016 of the Court of the Ld. ADJ No.8, Jaipur Metro in the Sessions Case No.15/2014, as well as the Judgement/Order dated 03.07.2023 of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1451/2017 as presented before us, it had emerged that thereby the Applicant in the present O.A. was proved to commit offence under Section (341 & 323) of IPC, having contributed in wrongful restraint and also use of criminal force, thereby inflicting injuries on certain persons (PW-2 and PW-4 in the criminal case). Accordingly, it is patently clear to us from the foregoing that the criminal case of the Applicant in the present O.A. wasYOGENDRA not SINGH held to be of a trivial nature by the competent MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc03 SINGH 0def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273 MEENA 119b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.03.03 12:27:50+05'30' 12 O.A. No. 278/2016 Courts of Law. We thus hold that such a defence on his part was not tenable in the present O.A.before this Tribunal.
13. Further, both through their written submissions as well as at the stage of arguments, the parties had sought to rely upon the authority of Judgments and Orders of the Hon'ble superior Courts, in support of their respective cases. On behalf of the Applicant, it had been submitted vide the present O.A. itself that in DBCWP No. 21687/2013, Chandra Prakash Meena Vs. CAT and Others, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Benchhad considered the question whether pendency of criminal proceedings before the Court of Law would be sufficient to deny entry into Government Service ; and decided vide Judgment dated 22.08.2014 held that, in the facts of instant case,taking cognizance against the petitioner would in no mannerdeprive the petitioner from seeking public employment.
Also, it had been submitted that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in SBCWP No. 2227/2013, Chetram Meena V/s State of Rajasthan &Ors, decided videJudgment dated 20.09.2013, by considering similar controversy, held that where pendency of criminal case is not a bar to allow joining after appointment, pendency of criminal case cannot be said to be adverse for joining of the post. In addition, during the hearings/arguments, the learned Counsel for the Applicants had sought to rely further on the authority of the Judgment and Order dated 01.05.1998 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal No.2357 of 1998 in the case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi &Anr. vs Dhaval Singh [AIR 1999 SC 2326] ; and that dated 02.05.2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal No.3574/2022 in the case of Pawan Kumar vs Union of India [2022 SCC OnLine SC 532] - which also had been taken on record.
YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc03 SINGH 0def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273 MEENA 119b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.03.03 12:27:50+05'30' 13 O.A. No. 278/2016
14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondents had vide their Reply itself cited the authorities of various Judgments and Orders of Hon'ble superior Courts, including -
1. [2000 (2) WLC 400] full Bench decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Dharmpal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
2. [2003 (3) SCC 437] of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav
3. [2005 (7) SCC 177] of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Koneti Venkateswarlu& Ors.
4. [2005 (2) SCC 746] of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Security Department of Home Secy. A.P. & Ors. Vs. B. Chinnam Naidu In addition, during the hearings/arguments, the learned Counsel for Respondents had sought to rely further on the authority of the Judgment and Order dated 21.07.2016 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 20525/2011 in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2016) 8 SCC 471] ; and that dated 17.09.2021 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5743-5744 of 2021 in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Anr. Vs. Anil Kanwariya [(2021)10 SCC 136]- which also had been taken on record.
15. However, it is seen from the various authorities citedthat differing views had been taken by the concerned Hon'ble Courts- on the question of suppression or submission of false information in the verification form regarding criminal prosecution/arrest or pendency of a criminal case - based on the facts and findings of each case. Moreover, it also emerged vide the authority of the YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc03 SINGH 0def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273 MEENA 119b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.03.03 12:27:50+05'30' 14 O.A. No. 278/2016 Judgment dated 21.07.2016 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 3- Judge Bench in the SLP (C) No. 20525/2011 in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2016 (8) SCC 471], which was submitted by the learned Counsel for Respondents before us- that in the situation of the variance noticed in different decisionson the question of suppression of information or submitting false information in the verification form as to the question of having been criminally prosecuted/arrested or as to pendency of a criminal case, the matter had been referred for resolving the conflict of opinion in the various decision of Division benches of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to the Hon'ble 03-Judge Bench. The said reference had come to be resolved vide the Judgment dated 21.07.2016 of the Hon'ble 03-Judge Bench.
16. After considering various decisions of Division Benches of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble 3-Judge Bench had proceeded to answer the reference to resolve the conflict of opinion ;and summarized their conclusion inter alia as follows:
"30. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus:
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.
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.
The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc03 SINGH 0def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273 MEENA 119b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.03.03 12:27:50+05'30' 15 O.A. No. 278/2016 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 : -
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.Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. 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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(10) For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA form has to be specific, not vague. Only such YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc03 SINGH 0def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273 MEENA 119b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.03.03 12:27:50+05'30' 16 O.A. No. 278/2016 information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.
(11) Before a person is held guilty of suppressioveri or suggestiofalsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."
It is noted that in the context of the arguments presented in the case vide the present O.A., the relevant aspects of the law as laid down aforesaid had emerged to be inter alia - that 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 ; and that 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, but where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee ; and even if a 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.
17. Thus,the law in the matter had,on reference, been laid down authoritatively by the Hon'ble 3-Judge Bench vide Judgment dated 21.07.2016 - whileresolving the conflict inter se in the various other Judgments and Orders of the Division Benches of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including also many whose authority had been cited before us by the parties. Hence, the authorities YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc03 SINGH 0def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273 MEENA 119b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.03.03 12:27:50+05'30' 17 O.A. No. 278/2016 cited in the present case,if of dates prior,are deemed to be subsumed in the conclusions of the Judgment dated 21.07.2016 of the Hon'ble 3-Judge Bench - unless differentiated by the learned Counsels at the stage of the arguments ; and such cases as differentiated by the learned Counsels are examined hereafter.
18. The learned Counsel for the Applicant had cited the authority of Pawan Kumar vs Union of India [2022 SCC OnLine SC 532] (supra), wherein vide Judgment/Orderdated 02.05.2022,the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed that the judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court and the order of discharge issued by Respondents therein be quashed and set aside ; and Respondents were further directed to reinstate the appellant in service on the post of Constable on which he was selected pursuant to his participation in reference to the related employment notice.
Upon perusal, it had emerged at the outset that the principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble 3-Judge Bench while resolving the reference made in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2016 (8) SCC 471](supra) had been explicitly relied upon therein. On careful perusal further, it was found to take into account inter alia -that the criminal complaint/FIR in the appellant's case was registered post submission of the application form by him ; that the nature of allegations made in the criminal case were of trivial nature as these had pertained to a missing bag which was later found beneath the driver's seat itself ; that the de-facto complainant had submitted an affidavit that he had lodged the complaint under misconception but no such incident as alleged therein had actually taken place ; that the prosecution witnesses had not supported the case of prosecution during the course of trial and for that reason the appellant had been honourably acquitted YOGENDRA SINGH MEENAby the Trial Court.
YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc03 SINGH 0def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273 MEENA 119b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.03.03 12:27:50+05'30' 18 O.A. No. 278/2016 Looking at the related criminal case of the Applicant in the present O.A. before us, it is found inter alia - that the FIR against him had been filed on 10.04.2014 and the related charge sheet had been taken cognizance of in the Sessions Case No.15/2014 on 09.10.2014, i.e. well prior to his filing the declaration dated 20.03.2015 ; that the nature of allegations made in the criminal case were for offences under Sections - (341, 323, 342, 307, 458 read with Section 34) of the IPC; that the complainants inter alia the prosecution witnesses had supported the case of prosecution during the course of trial and the Applicant had been found guilty was proved to commit offence under Section (341 & 323) of IPC, having contributed in wrongful restraint and also use of criminal force, thereby inflicting injuries on certain persons (PW-2 and PW- 4 in the said case) by the Trial Court of the Ld. ASJ No.8, Jaipur Metro, which had also been upheld in the related criminal appeal filed by the Applicant that was dismissed vide Judgment/Order dated 03.07.2023 of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur. Therefore, we find that the material facts of the criminal case as well as the suppression of information / wrong declaration of the present Applicant were not at all similar but on a very different footing from that in the cited case of Pawan Kumar vs Union of India [2022 SCC OnLine SC 532] (supra) - hence that would not be of any assistance to the Applicant in the present O.A.
19. The learned counsel for Respondents had cited the authority of the Judgment/Order dated 17.09.2021 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra), which was in a case where appointment had been obtained on the basis of a false declaration that neither any criminal case was pending against the employee nor had he been convicted by any court of law ; despite being convicted by the competent Court YOGENDRA SINGHof Law of offences under Section (341 & 323) of MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc03 SINGH 0def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273 MEENA 119b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.03.03 12:27:50+05'30' 19 O.A. No. 278/2016 IPC and grant of benefit of Section-12 of the Probation of Offenders Act-1958. Upon perusal of the authority cited as aforesaid, it was found that after considering the relevant aspects at length, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held vide its operative part inter alia that -
"11. ... ... Even otherwise, subsequently getting the benefit of Section 12 of the Act 1958 shall not be helpful to 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 he has 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 Act 1958. 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.
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 been disclosed, the employer might not have 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 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.
13. In view of the afore-stated facts and circumstances of the case, both, the learned Division Bench as well as the learned Single Judge have clearly YOGENDRA erred SINGH in MEENA quashing and setting aside the order of termination YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc03 SINGH 0def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273 MEENA 119b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.03.03 12:27:50+05'30' 20 O.A. No. 278/2016 terminating the services of Respondent on the ground of having obtained an appointment by suppressing material fact and filing a false declaration. The order of reinstatement is wholly untenable and unjustified.
14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeals succeed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench, as well as, the order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing and setting aside the order of termination are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the writ petition filed by Respondent- employee stands dismissed and the order of termination stands restored. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."
Hence, it had been shown thereby that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its Order dated 17.09.2021 in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Anr. Vs. Anil Kanwariya [(2021) 10 SCC 136] (supra) had inter alia held that - the subsequent grant of benefit of Section-12 of the Probation of Offenders Act-1958 shall not be helpful to him ; that he shall not be entitled to appointment as a matter of right ; and the question was also of trust, because if the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him - the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. In the context that the facts of the present case of the Applicant - viz., the suppression of pendency of charge-sheet against him in a Court of Law from 09.10.2014 under Sections (341, 323, 342, 307, 458 read with Section 34) of IPCwhile filing his declaration dated 20.03.2015 ; his conviction under Sections (323 and 341) of the IPC on 28.09.2016 by the Sessions Court of learned ASJ No. 8, Jaipur Metropolitan (that was also subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan) ; and grant of benefit of Section-12 of the Probation of Offenders Act-1958 - were closely similar. Thus, it would imply that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc03 SINGH 0def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273 MEENA 119b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.03.03 12:27:50+05'30' 21 O.A. No. 278/2016 PrasaranNigam Limited and Anr. Vs. Anil Kanwariya [(2021) 10 SCC 136] (supra)would squarely apply in the present case of the Applicant.Hence, relying on the same, it would emerge that the Applicant was not entitled to appointment as a matter of right ; and Respondents' decision not to employ the Applicant was justified and they cannot be forced to employ the Applicant.
20. Hence, in the conspectus of all of the foregoing, it had emerged inter alia - that 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 ; that the Applicant had suppressed the information of the pendency of the criminal case and made a false declaration on 20.03.2015 ; that the voluntary sharing of information regarding the pendency of the criminal charge-sheet before a Court of Law later when the Applicant had reported for joining on 04.11.2015, even if correct, would not erase the factum of his concealment/false declaration at the material stage, i.e. the interview on 20.03.2015 and cannot in any case tantamount to the Applicant being saved from the clause-(viii) of the said Declaration (supra) ; and that his claim of having an unfettered right for appointment based on the offer dated 07.10.2015, despite his said false declaration and concealment of relevant facts at the material stage did not stand. Also, it had emerged inter alia - that the criminal charges against the Applicant had eventually been proven in the Court of the Ld. ASJ No.8, Jaipur Metro and he was found guilty of the offences charged under Sections (323 & 341) of the IPC ; and the appeal preferred by the Applicant against the same had also been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur while YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc03 SINGH 0def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273 MEENA 119b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.03.03 12:27:50+05'30' 22 O.A. No. 278/2016 holding that his involvement was proved in committing offences under Section (341 & 323) of IPC by having contributed in wrongful restraint and also use of criminal force, thereby inflicting injuries on PW-2 and PW-4 in the said criminal case. Thus, the claim of the Applicant of being innocent and falsely implicated in the criminal case/charge-sheetwhich was pending before a Court of Law at the time of his declaration at the stage of interview on 20.03.2015 was proven to be incorrect.
Further, it had also emerged inter alia - that the actions of the Applicant,in respect of which he had been charged in the criminal case against him, were deliberate and malicious with the intent of causing injury ; that those were not in the nature of minor, everyday inconvenience that would cause only such a slight harm that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain about or that would be too insignificant to merit legal action ; and thus, the claimthat the criminal case against him had been held to be of a trivial nature by the competent Courts of Law was untenable.
Also further importantly, the authorities cited before us of the Judgments and Orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had brought out as hereafter. Firstly, in light of the Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2016 (8) SCC 471](supra), vide which thelaw had been authoritatively laid down/clarified regarding suppression of information or submitting false information in the verification form as to the question of having been criminally prosecuted/arrested or as to pendency of a criminal case, it had emerged relevantly for the present case inter alia - that the Applicant had failed to furnish the correct information to Respondents about the pendency of a criminal case prior to entering into service ; that the conviction recorded in his case was not trivial in nature, which YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET= DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal, SERIALNUMBER= 4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc03 SINGH 0def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273 MEENA 119b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.03.03 12:27:50+05'30' 23 O.A. No. 278/2016 made the Applicant's offer of appointment to be liable to be cancelled in light of the seriousness of the crime. Secondly, with reference to Pawan Kumar vs Union of India [2022 SCC OnLine SC 532] (supra), it was found that being on a very different footing, the said case would not be of any assistance to the Applicant in the present O.A. Thirdly, with reference to Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Anr. Vs. Anil Kanwariya [(2021) 10 SCC 136] (supra), which squarely applied in the present case of the Applicant, it was found that the Applicant was not entitled to appointment as a matter of right ; and Respondents' decision not to employ the Applicant was justified and they cannot be forced to employ the Applicant.
21. Therefore, we hold that the case of the Applicant vide the present of O.A. has failed on merit and no interference was called for with the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015, dated 15.03.2016 and dated 12.05.2016 of Respondent No.3. Consequently, the otherreliefs prayed for by the Applicant were also untenable and inadmissible. We order accordingly.
22. Hence, this O.A. is dismissed on merit. Pending M.A.s, if any, are also disposed of in accordance. No order as to costs.
(Lok Ranjan) (Ranjana Shahi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ysm/
YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA
YOGENDRA C=IN, PostalCode=328001, S=RAJASTHAN, STREET=
DHOLPUR, L=DHOLPUR, O=Personal,
SERIALNUMBER=
4e756f4c4c85f20cdefc1bed11c6cf501e5611721c1444fc03 SINGH 0def98a43faa36, OID.2.5.4.65= e8ebcc48f49582c16cbe9a495d2e2f60, Phone= 7313ba10287f4ca4971252bd2b450795cdaa18df68cf3b273 MEENA 119b94c2e919248, E=MEENAYOGENDRASINGH4@ GMAIL.COM, CN=YOGENDRA SINGH MEENA 2026.03.03 12:27:50+05'30'