Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Bijendra Singh vs Union Of India on 18 September, 2025
O.A./274/2008
(Reserved on 12.09.2025)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Original Application No.274 of 2008
th
Pronounced on this the 18 Day of September, 2025.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Bijendra Singh S/o Late Mukhi Singh Resident of- village Deta Khurd,
Post office- Pisawan, District- Aligarh Presently R/o- Quarter No. 98,
Government of India Press Colony, Aligarh.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Pradeep Kumar Pandey
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Urban
Development, Central Public Works Department, New Delhi.
2. The Executive Engineer (Electrical) Lucknow Central Electrical
Division, C.P.W. Lucknow.
3. The Executive Engineer, Agra Central Engineer (Electrical)
Division, Kendralay, Block-63/4, 1st Floor, Sanjay Palace, Agra.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A) Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order 11.2.2008 passed by the Respondent no.3.
(ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents not to give effect & operation of the order dated 11.2.2008.
(iii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents not to harass the applicant in pursuance of termination order dated 11.2.2008 and further pay him the salary as and when falls due.
(iv) A writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The brief facts of this case are that the applicant was initially appointed on the post of Peon vide order dated 29.06.2006 by Digitally MADHU signed by Page 1 of 21 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./274/2008 respondent no.2. Thereafter, vide the impugned order dated 11.02.2008, the respondents have terminated the service of the applicant. The applicant was also granted interim stay vide order dated 13.02.2008 which was vacated when this O.A. was earlier dismissed in default for want of prosecution and remained such after the O.A. was restored.
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
4. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the impugned termination order has been passed without any opportunity to the applicant to be heard. He further argued that the same has been passed by respondent no.3 while the appointing authority of the applicant was respondent no.2. Thus, it is argued that the termination order is illegal. He further states that the applicant was appointed on compassionate ground and appointment on compassionate ground is not a temporary appointment rather it is a permanent appointment. Termination of service of the applicant treating him as a temporary appointee is contrary to the rule of appointment on compassionate ground. The stand taken by respondents that the applicant has been terminated as there were several criminal cases pending against him is an afterthought as the termination order is completely silent on this aspect.
5. Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 11.02.2008. It is submitted that at the time of submissions of application form, the applicant concealed the material information, which, however, has come into the knowledge of the respondents vide report dated 30.12.2006 received from the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh on 22.01.2008 in which it has been mentioned that there are ten criminal cases pending against the applicant. The applicant has deliberately concealed this information to get the government job. It is further argued that both respondent nos. 2 and 3 are Executive Engineers and respondent no. 3 is fully Digitally MADHU signed by Page 2 of 21 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./274/2008 competent to take action against the Group 'D' employee working under his control. It is next contended that the impugned order dated 11.02.2008 reveals that one month notice was given to the applicant and he shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of notice. The payment in lieu of one month's notice has been made to the applicant as per Acknowledgement dated 18.03.2008 and it could not be made earlier as the payment was to be released by PAO (NZ) East Block-IV R.K. Puram, New Delhi, under New Scheme. It is argued that the appointment order dated 29.06.2006 of the applicant itself says in point no. 5 that "सरकार उनकी सेवाएं कभी भी कोई कारण बताएं बिना समाप्त कर सकती है किन्तु साधारणतः एक महीने का नोटिस दिया जाऐगा किन्तु यदि वह त्यागपत्र दे ना चाहता है तो उसे त्यागपत्र प्रस्तत ु करना होगा और सरकार द्वारा इसे स्वीकृत किए जाने तक प्रतीक्षा करनी होगी । ..." Thus, learned counsel for the respondents argued that there is no illegality in the impugned order that would warrant any interference by this Tribunal.
6. In his rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the services of the applicant has been illegally terminated as according to CCS Temporary Service Rule 1965-R5 (1) (A) Proviso provides that on the termination of the services, payment of allowance should be made forthwith but the applicant has not been paid the allowances immediately at the time when the notice of termination was served on him. In this connection, the applicant relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar vs UOI & Ors [AIR 1975 SUPREME COURT 536 = 1975 LAB I. C. 120] decided on 07.10.1974, wherein it has been held to be effective, the termination must be simultaneous with the payment. It is further submitted that at the time the applicant applied for the appointment on compassionate ground in the year 1997 there was no criminal history of the applicant, thus, it cannot be said that the applicant concealed any fact. The criminal cases shown against the applicant are from the year 2000 to 2006 which are lodged against the applicant due to family dispute. He argues that the applicant had also filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Delhi Digitally MADHU signed by Page 3 of 21 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./274/2008 High Court (W.P. (C) 10929/2008 and C.M. No.8010/2005) in which the order was passed on 13.03.2006 directing the respondents to process the petitioner's case in the light of the fact (that the applicant was senior most in the waiting list as had been admitted by the respondents) and ensure that the letter of compassionate appointment is given to him by the end of June 2006.
7. The details of the criminal cases against the applicant are as under:
i. Case crime No. 28 of 2004, under section 110 Cr.P.C., Police Station Piswa was a notice for Gunda Act, which has rendered infructuous as the period of such notices of almost one year, as such it has expired in the year 2005 itself.
ii. Case crime No. 182 of 2002, 2002, und under section 3 of U.P. Gunda Act, and that too was registered at Police Station Piswa by the village opponent with the help of police. The notice for the rendered Gunda Act which has been infructuous by the efflux of time.
iii. Case crime No. 87 of 2000, under section 307, f 2000, under 324 I.P.C. the applicant has been acquitted by the competent court. A true copy of the acquittal order has already been annexed with the rejoinder affidavit as R.A.1.
iv. Case crime No. 16 of 2000, under section 452, 354 I.P.C. the applicant has already been acquitted by the competent court. A true copy of the acquittal order which has already been annexed with the rejoinder affidavit as R.A.2.
v. Case crime No. 104 of 2001, under section 394, 427, 411 I.P.C. the applicant has already been acquitted by the learned court below.
vi. Case crime No. 105 of 2001, under section 25 of Arms Act was filed by the police against the applicant, the applicant has been acquitted by the learned court below.
Digitally MADHU signed by Page 4 of 21 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./274/2008 vii. Case crime No. 32 of 2002, under section 307 I.P.C. which is pending before the learned court below.
viii. Case crime No. 34 of 2002, under section 25 Arms Act which is pending before the learned court below. The cases shown in vii and viii relates to one incident of police firing, but no injury case. The prosecution is by police and they are not forwarding any witnesses for prosecuting these case till date.
ix. Case crime No. 122 of 2002, under section 147, 148, 342, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. which is still pending before the learned court below.
x. Case crime No. 41 of 2006, under section 60 of Excise Act the applicant has already been acquitted by the learned court below.
8. We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, and gone through the entire documents on record.
9. On the issue of suppression of criminal cases at the time of appointment, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Ors [2024 INSC 131] (Civil Appeal No. 5902 of 2012 decided on 22.02.2024 has made detailed deliberations quoting the various other case laws on the topic including Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471. The relevant portion is being reproduced below for reference:
20. The law on this issue is settled by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh (Supra). Paras 34, 35, 36 & 38, which sets out the conclusions, are extracted herein below:-
"34. No doubt about it that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess suitability and it is open to employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects.
35. Suppression of "material" information presupposes that what is suppressed that "matters"
not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has Digitally MADHU signed by Page 5 of 21 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./274/2008 to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases.
36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects.
38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise 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. 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.
Digitally MADHU signed by Page 6 of 21 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./274/2008 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 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. 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 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." (Emphasis supplied)
21. As would be clear from Avtar Singh (Supra), it has been clearly laid down that though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for Digitally MADHU signed by Page 7 of 21 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./274/2008 appointment, he or she has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily. The exercise of power has to be in a reasonable manner with objectivity and having due regard to the facts. In short, the ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria after due consideration of all relevant aspects.
*************
23. In Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2011) 14 SCC 709, another case noticed and discussed in Avtar Singh (Supra) arising out of near identical facts and construing a similar clause in the verification form, this Court, while granting relief, held as follows:-
"9. We have carefully read the Government Order dated 28-4-1958 on the subject "Verification of the character and antecedents of government servants before their first appointment" and it is stated in the government order that the Governor has been pleased to lay down the following instructions in supersession of all the previous orders:
"The rule regarding character of candidate for appointment under the State Government shall continue to be as follows:
The character of a candidate for direct appointment must be such as to render him suitable in all respects for employment in the service or post to which he is to be appointed. It would be the duty of the appointing authority to satisfy itself on this point.
xxx xxx
12. On a reading of the order dated 18-7-2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate it would show that the sole witness examined before the court, PW 1, Mr Akhilesh Kumar, had deposed before the court that on 2- 12-2000 at 4.00 p.m. children were quarrelling and at that time the appellant, Shailendra and Ajay Kumar amongst other neighbours had reached there and someone from the crowd hurled abuses and in the scuffle Akhilesh Kumar got injured when he fell and his head hit a brick platform and that he was not beaten by the accused persons by any sharp weapon. In the absence of any other witness against the appellant, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 323/34/504 IPC. On these facts, it was not at all possible for the appointing authority to take a view that the appellant was not suitable for appointment to the post of a police constable.
13. The order dated 18-7-2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had been sent along with the Digitally MADHU signed by Page 8 of 21 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./274/2008 report dated 15-1-2007 of Jaswant Nagar Police Station to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, but it appears from the order dated 8-8-2007 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, that he has not gone into the question as to whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to service or to the post of constable in which he was appointed and he has only held that the selection of the appellant was illegal and irregular because he did not furnish in his affidavit in the pro forma of verification roll that a criminal case has been registered against him.
14. As has been stated in the instructions in the Government Order dated 28-4-1958, it was the duty of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, as the appointing authority, to satisfy himself on the point as to whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of a constable, with reference to the nature of suppression and nature of the criminal case. Instead of considering whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of male constable, the appointing authority has mechanically held that his selection was irregular and illegal because the appellant had furnished an affidavit stating the facts incorrectly at the time of recruitment.
xxx xxx
17. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and the impugned order of the Division Bench and allow the writ petition of the appellant and quash the order dated 8-8- 2007 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. The appellant will be taken back in service within a period of two months from today but he will not be entitled to any back wages for the period he has remained out of service.
There shall be no order as to costs." Ram Kumar (supra) was also a case of cancellation of selection to the post of Constable.
24. More recently in Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India and Another, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 532, involving appointment to the post of Constable in Railway Protection Force and setting aside the order of discharge due to alleged suppression in the verification form, this Court, after noticing Avtar Singh (Supra) held as under:-
"11. This cannot be disputed that the candidate who intends to participate in the selection process is always required to furnish correct information relating to his character and antecedents in the verification/attestation form before and after induction into service. It is also equally true that the person who has suppressed the material information or has made Digitally MADHU signed by Page 9 of 21 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./274/2008 false declaration indeed has no unfettered right of seeking appointment or continuity in service, but at least has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to be judiciously exercised by the competent authority in a reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts of the case on hand. It goes without saying that the yardstick/standard which has to be applied with regard to adjudging suitability of the incumbent always depends upon the nature of post, nature of duties, effect of suppression over suitability to be considered by the authority on due diligence of various aspects but no hard and fast rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard.
13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What being noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service.
19. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 17th November, 2015 and the order of discharge dated 24th April, 2015 and dated 23rd December, 2021 are hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant in service on the post of Constable on which he was selected pursuant to his participation in reference to employment notice no. 1/2011 dated 27th February, 2011. We make it clear that the appellant will not be entitled for the arrears of salary for the period during which he has not served the force and at the same time he will be entitled for all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits, etc. Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of one month from today. No costs."
25. In Mohammed Imran vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2019) 17 SCC 696, no doubt, a case where a candidate made the disclosure of criminal case, this Court speaking through Navin Sinha, J. made the following telling observation which resonates with the hard realities of everyday existence :
Digitally MADHU signed by Page 10 of 21 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./274/2008 "5. Employment opportunities are a scarce commodity in our country. Every advertisement invites a large number of aspirants for limited number of vacancies.
But that may not suffice to invoke sympathy for grant of relief where the credentials of the candidate may raise serious questions regarding suitability, irrespective of eligibility. Undoubtedly, judicial service is very different from other services and the yardstick of suitability that may apply to other services, may not be the same for a judicial service. But there cannot be any mechanical or rhetorical incantation of moral turpitude, to deny appointment in judicial service simplicitor. Much will depend on the facts of a case. Every individual deserves an opportunity to improve, learn from the past and move ahead in life by self-improvement. To make past conduct, irrespective of all considerations, an albatross around the neck of the candidate, may not always constitute justice. Much will, however depend on the fact situation of a case."
26. We have also kept in mind the recent judgment of this Court in Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India and Others, (2023) 7 SCC 530 and the broad principles set out by this Court in para 93, especially, paras 93.1, 93.3 & 93.7. Even the broad principles set out therein recognize that each case should be scrutinized thoroughly by the public employer concerned and the Court is obliged to examine whether the procedure of enquiry adopted by the authority concerned was fair and reasonable. Avtar Singh (Supra) in para 38.2 has held that while passing the order of cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. Further, in para 38.4.3 of Avtar Singh (Supra) the principle that, in case of suppression or false information of involvement of criminal case, where acquittal has already been recorded, the employer can still consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. We have read and understood the broad principles laid down in Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) with the following crucial para in Avtar Singh (Supra):
"35. Suppression of "material" information presupposes that what is suppressed that "matters"
not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases."
10. It would also be worthwhile to quote the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Digitally MADHU signed by Page 11 of 21 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./274/2008 Prasaran Nigam vs. Anil Kanwariya [AIRONLINE 2021 SC 728] decided on 17.09.2021. Paragraphs 8, 10 and 12 of the same are being reproduced below:
"8. While considering the aforesaid issues, few decisions of this Court on appointment obtained by fraud/misrepresentation and/or appointment obtained by suppression of material facts are required to be referred to and considered.
8.1 In the case of B. Chinnam Naidu (supra), this Court has observed that the object of requiring information in the attestation form and the declaration thereafter by the candidate is to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to enter into or continue in service. It is further observed that when a candidate suppresses material information and/or gives false information, he cannot claim any right for appointment or continuance in service. 8.2 In the case of Devendra Kumar (supra), while joining the training, the employee was asked to submit an affidavit giving certain information, particularly, whether he had ever been involved in any criminal case. The employee submitted an affidavit stating that he had never been involved in any criminal case. The employee completed his training satisfactorily and it was at this time that the employer in pursuance of the process of character verification came to know that the employee was in fact involved in a criminal case. It was found that the final report in that case had been submitted by the prosecution and accepted by the Judicial Magistrate concerned. On the basis of the same, the employee was discharged abruptly on the ground that since he was a temporary government servant, he could be removed from service without holding an enquiry. The said order was challenged by the employee by filing a writ petition before a Single Judge of the High Court which was dismissed. The Division Bench upheld that order, which was the subject matter of appeal before this Court. Dismissing the appeal, this Court observed and held that the question is not whether the employee is suitable for the post. The pendency of a criminal case/proceeding is different from suppressing the information of such pendency. The case pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude but suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral turpitude. It is further observed that the information sought by the employer if not disclosed as required, would definitely amount to suppression of material information and in that eventuality, the service becomes liable to be terminated, even if there had been no further trial or the person concerned stood acquitted/discharged. It is further observed by this Court in the said decision that where an applicant/employee gets an order by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of the law. "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal". It is further observed and held that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have defrauded or misrepresented themselves and in such circumstances the court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf. The relevant Digitally MADHU signed by Page 12 of 21 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./274/2008 observations in the said decision are in paras 12, 13, 18 & 25, which are as under:
12. So far as the issue of obtaining the appointment by misrepresentation is concerned, it is no more res integra.
The question is not whether the applicant is suitable for the post. The pendency of a criminal case/proceeding is different from suppressing the information of such pendency. The case pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude but suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral turpitude. In fact, the information sought by the employer if not disclosed as required, would definitely amount to suppression of material information. In that eventuality, the service becomes liable to be terminated, even if there had been no further trial or the person concerned stood acquitted/discharged.
13. It is a settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an office by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of the law. "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal." [Vide S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1: AIR 1994 SC 853.] In Lazarus Estates Ltd. V. Beasley [(1956) 1 QB 702: (1956) 2 WLR 502:
(1956) 1 ALL ER 341 (CA)] the Court observed without equivocation that:
(QB p. 712) "... No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything."
18. The ratio laid down by this Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have frauded or misrepresented themselves. In such circumstances the court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf. In Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran (1995) Supp (4) SCC 100 this court, after placing reliance upon and approving its earlier judgment in Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655, observed as under: (M. Bhaskaran case, SCC p. 104, para 6) If by committing fraud any employment is obtained, the same cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a court of law as the employment secured by fraud renders it voidable at the option of the employer.
25. More so, if the initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct of party cannot sanctify the same. Sublato fundamento cadit opus - a foundation being removed, the superstructure falls. A person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the lawful trial by a competent Digitally MADHU signed by Page 13 of 21 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./274/2008 court. In such a case the legal maxim nullus commodum caprere potest de injuria sua propria applies. The persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation. [Vide Union of India v. Major General Madan Lal Yadav (1996) 4 SCC 127:1996 SCC (Cri) 592:
AIR 1996 SC 1340 and Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224: 2000 SCC (Cri) 1056.] Nor can a person claim any right arising out of his own wrongdoing (jus ex injuria non oritur).
8.3 In the case of Jainendra Singh (supra), this Court summarised the principles to be considered in a case where the appointment is obtained by misrepresentation and/or suppression of facts by candidates/appointees as under:
"(i) Fraudulently obtained orders of appointment could be legitimately treated as voidable at the option of the employer or could be recalled by the employer and in such cases merely because the respondent employee has continued in service for a number of years, on the basis of such fraudulently obtained employment, cannot get any equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer.
(ii) Verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to the post under the State and on account of his antecedents the appointing authority if find not desirable to appoint a person to a disciplined force can it be said to be unwarranted.
(iii) When appointment was procured by a person on the basis of forged documents, it would amount to misrepresentation and fraud on the employer and, therefore, it would create no equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer while resorting to termination without holding any inquiry.
(iv) A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service and the employer, having regard to the nature of employment as well as other aspects, has the discretion to terminate his services.
(v) The purpose of calling for information regarding involvement in any criminal case or detention or conviction is for the purpose of verification of the character/antecedents at the time of recruitment and suppression of such material information will have clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the candidate in relation to his continuity in service.
(vi) The person who suppressed the material information and/or gives false information cannot claim any right for appointment or continuity in service.
Digitally MADHU signed by Page 14 of 21 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./274/2008
(vii) The standard expected of a person intended to serve in uniformed service is quite distinct from other services and, therefore, any deliberate statement or omission regarding a vital information can be seriously viewed and the ultimate decision of the appointing authority cannot be faulted.
(viii) An employee on probation can be discharged from service or may be refused employment on the ground of suppression of material information or making false statement relating to his involvement in the criminal case, conviction or detention, even if ultimately he was acquitted of the said case, inasmuch as such a situation would make a person undesirable or unsuitable for the post.
(ix) An employee in the uniformed service pre-supposes a higher level of integrity as such a person is expected to uphold the law and on the contrary such a service born in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated.
(x) The authorities entrusted with the responsibility of appointing Constables, are under duty to verify the antecedents of a candidate to find out whether he is suitable for the post of a Constable and so long as the candidate has not been acquitted in the criminal case, he cannot be held to be suitable for appointment to the post of Constable." 8.4 In the case of Daya Shankar Yadav (supra), this Court had an occasion to consider the purpose of seeking the information with respect to antecedents. It is observed and held that the purpose of seeking the information with respect to antecedents is to ascertain the character and antecedents of the candidate so as to assess his suitability for the post.
It is further observed that when an employee or a prospective employee declares in a verification form, answers to the queries relating to character and antecedents, the verification thereof can lead to any of the following consequences:
"(a) If the declarant has answered the questions in the affirmative and furnished the details of any criminal case (wherein he was convicted or acquitted by giving benefit of doubt for want of evidence), the employer may refuse to offer him employment (or if already employed on probation, discharge him from service), if he is found to be unfit having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence/crime in which he was involved.
(b) On the other hand, if the employer finds that the criminal case disclosed by the declarant related to offences which were technical, or of a nature that would not affect the declarant's fitness for employment, or where the declarant had been honourably acquitted and exonerated, the employer may ignore the fact that the Digitally MADHU signed by Page 15 of 21 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./274/2008 declarant had been prosecuted in a criminal case and proceed to appoint him or continue him in employment.
(c) Where the declarant has answered the questions in the negative and on verification it is found that the answers were false, the employer may refuse to employ the declarant (or discharge him, if already employed), even if the declarant had been cleared of the charges or is acquitted. This is because when there is suppression or non-disclosure of material information bearing on his character, that itself becomes a reason for not employing the declarant.
(d) Where the attestation form or verification form does not contain proper or adequate queries requiring the declarant to disclose his involvement in any criminal proceedings, or where the candidate was unaware of initiation of criminal proceedings when he gave the declarations in the verification roll/attestation form, then the candidate cannot be found fault with, for not furnishing the relevant information. But if the employer by other means (say police verification or complaints, etc.) learns about the involvement of the declarant, the employer can have recourse to courses (a) or (b) above."
Thereafter, it is observed and held that an employee can be discharged from service or a prospective employee may be refused employment on the ground of ........suppression of material information or making false statement in reply to queries relating to prosecution or conviction for a criminal offence (even if he was ultimately acquitted in the criminal case).
8.5 In the case of Abhijit Singh Pawar (supra), when the employee participated in the selection process, he tendered an affidavit disclosing the pending criminal case against him. The affidavit was filed on 22.12.2012. According to the disclosure, a case registered in the year 2006 was pending on the date when the affidavit was tendered. However, within four days of filing such an affidavit, a compromise was entered into between the original complainant and the employee and an application for compounding the offence was filed under Section 320 Cr.P.C. The employee came to be discharged in view of the deed of compromise. That thereafter the employee was selected in the examination and was called for medical examination. However, around the same time, his character verification was also undertaken and after due consideration of the character verification report, his candidature was rejected. The employee filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging rejection of his candidature. The learned single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed the said writ petition. The judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge directing the State to appoint the employee came to be confirmed by the Division Bench which led to appeal before this Court. After considering catena of decisions on the point including the decision of this Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), this Court upheld the order of the State rejecting the candidature of the employee by Digitally MADHU signed by Page 16 of 21 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./274/2008 observing that as held in Avtar Singh (supra), even in cases where a truthful disclosure about a concluded case was made, the employer would still have a right to consider antecedents of the candidate and could not be compelled to appoint such candidate. After reproducing and/or re-considering para 38.5 of the decision in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), in paragraph 13, this Court observed and held as under:
13. In Avtar Singh (supra), though this Court was principally concerned with the question as to non-disclosure or wrong disclosure of information, it was observed in para 38.5 that even in cases where a truthful disclosure about a concluded case was made, the employer would still have a right to consider antecedents of the candidate and could not be compelled to appoint such candidate.
In the said decision, this Court also considered the conduct on the part of the employee in getting discharge on the basis of the compromise which was obtained within a period of four days of filing the affidavit/disclosure. In paragraph 14, it is observed and held as under:
14. In the present case, as on the date when the respondent had applied, a criminal case was pending against him. Compromise was entered into only after an affidavit disclosing such pendency was filed. On the issue of compounding of offences and the effect of acquittal under Section 320(8) of CrPC, the law declared by this Court in Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685, specially in paras 34 and 35 completely concludes the issue.
Even after the disclosure is made by a candidate, the employer would be well within his rights to consider the antecedents and the suitability of the candidate. While so considering, the employer can certainly take into account the job profile for which the selection is undertaken, the severity of the charges levelled against the candidate and whether the acquittal in question was an honourable acquittal or was merely on the ground of benefit of doubt or as a result of composition.
*******************
10. Apart from the fact that at the time when the respondent applied in the month of October/November, 2013 though he was already convicted by the competent court and was given the benefit under Section 3 of the Act 1958 only, he did not disclose his conviction, but even at the time when he filed a declaration on 14.04.2015 he filed a false declaration that neither any criminal case is pending against him nor he has been convicted by any court of law and relying upon such a declaration the appellants gave him appointment. Only on police verification/receipt of the antecedent's report from the Superintendent of Police, Sawai Madhopur, the appellants came to know about the conviction of the respondent. Therefore, the appellants were absolutely justified in terminating the services of the respondent.
Digitally MADHU signed by Page 17 of 21 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./274/2008 ***********************
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."
11. From the aforesaid ratios of the Hon'ble Apex Court, what also emerges it that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen but a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment although he or she has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily. Further, 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. There is always this fear that if the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not give an appointment. However, 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 Digitally MADHU signed by Page 18 of 21 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./274/2008 employee always must be given to the employer who should not exercise it in an arbitrary manner.
12. Coming to the present case, firstly, we should take a note of the appointment letter dated 20.06.2006 issued to the applicant. The said letter holds the applicant to have been appointed on a completely temporary basis. Further in points 5, 14 and 23 of the same it has been stipulated as under:
"5 - सरकार उनकी सेवाएं कभी भी कोई कारण बताएं बिना समाप्त कर सकती है किन्तु साधारणतः एक महीने का नोटिस दिया जाऐगा किन्तु यदि वह त्यागपत्र दे ना चाहता है तो उसे त्यागपत्र प्रस्तत ु करना होगा और सरकार द्वारा इसे स्वीकृत किए जाने तक प्रतीक्षा करनी होगी। यदि वह इसे स्वीकत होने से पर्व ू ही चला जाता है तो उसे सेवा से बर्खास्त समझा जाऐगा और भविष्य में वह केन्द्र सरकार के अधीन रोजगार पाने के लिए अयोग्य होगा ।
...................
14- पलि ु स प्राधिकारियों द्वारा उनके चरित्र और पर्व ू वत्त ृ के सत्यापन तथा स्वास्थ्य की दृष्टि से उपयक् ु त घोषित किऐ जाने के पश्चात ् ही उसकी नियक्ति ु की जाऐगी ।
...................
23- यदि उम्मीदवार द्वारा की गई घोषणा या प्रस्तत ु की गई सच ू ना असत्य सिद्ध हो जाती है या यदि यह पाया गया है , कि उम्मीदवार ने किसी तथ्यात्मक सच ू ना को जान बझ ू कर छुपाया है तो उसे सेवा से निकाल दिया जाऐगा और अन्य कार्यवाही की जाएगी जिसे सरकार जरूरी समझती हो ।"
13. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Yogendra Ram Chaurasiya vs State of UP and others [Special Appeal No.319 of 1997, decided on 10.09.2002] in which it was decided that the appointment on compassionate ground is permanent appointment and not a temporary appointment. In the present case, the services of the applicant have been terminated treating him as a temporary appointee on the basis of condition no.5 stipulated in the appointment letter. It is relevant here to quote the office order dated 11.02.2008 which is as under:-
Digitally MADHU signed by Page 19 of 21 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./274/2008 OFFICE ORDER In pursuance of the proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules 1965, I, S.K. SANDHU, Executive Engineer (Electrical) hereby /terminate forthwith the services of Shri BIJENDRA SINGH S/O LATE SHRI MUKHI SINGH, Poon and direct that he shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his service or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month.
(S.K. SANDHU) EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(E) AGRA CENTRAL ELECT. DIVISON, C.P.W.D., AGRA.
14. Learned counsel for the respondents has further taken the stand that there are various criminal proceedings pending against the applicant which have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant and in a supplementary affidavit filed on 13.08.2025, he has admitted that case crime no. 32 of 2002 under section 307, case crime no. 34 of 2002 under section 25 Arms Act, case crime no. 122 of 2002 under section 147, 148, 342, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC are still pending against the applicant. If it was the case that the applicant was terminated due to the pendency of the criminal cases against him, it could have been reflected in the order of termination but it is not at all reflected in the order of termination. Only in the counter affidavit, the respondents have come to disclose that on the basis of a report of the District Magistrate, Aligarh, the applicant was terminated. When the applicant was given the offer of appointment, he could have been given a declaration form to fill and he could have signed the declaration form either disclosing or not disclosing the criminal cases pending against him. It is not a case as claimed by the respondents where the applicant has not disclosed the criminal cases pending against him. In such a situation, the respondents were at liberty to issue an appointment order after the character verification of the applicant. At this stage, the aspect of disclosure or non disclosure of criminal cases is not material in the light of the impugned termination order. Hence, we leave that issue apart.
Digitally MADHU signed by Page 20 of 21 KUMARI MADHU KUMARI O.A./274/2008
15. As the appointment on compassionate ground is a permanent appointment, the termination order issued against the applicant under the Temporary Services Rules, is illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.02.2008 is hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in service within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No back wages should be paid for the period the applicant has not worked in the respondents' department. The respondents are at liberty, if so advised, to take due action against the applicant as per the rules for disclosure or suppression of the pendency of criminal cases against him after getting appointment on compassionate grounds.
15. The O.A. is allowed with above directions. All associated M.A.s also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) ( Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (A) Member (J)
Madhu
Digitally
MADHU signed by Page 21 of 21
KUMARI MADHU
KUMARI