Vikash vs Union of India and Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
(CIVIL EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION)

W.P. (C) No. 49 of 2025



Vikash,
S/o Anand Kishore Mishra,
R/o Village Paika, Sonbhadra,
Uttar Pradesh-231205 ……………Petitioner

-VERSUS-

1. Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India,
New Delhi-110001.

2. Director General,
Sashastra Seema Bal,
Force Headquarters,
New Delhi-110066.

3. The Commandant,
th
36 Bn. Sashastra Seema Bal,
Gyalshing, Sikkim,
P. O. Yangtey, P.S. Gyalshing,
District West Sikkim-737111.

4. The Deputy Inspector General
Sector Headquarters,
Sashastra Seema Bal, Gangtok,
th

NH 10, 8 Mile, Marchak,
Ranipool-737135. ……………Respondents

WP(C) No.49 of 2025
(Vikash vs. Union of India & Ors.)
For Petitioner : Mr. A. Moulik, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Ranjit Prasad, Ms. Laxmi Khawas
and Ms. Neha Kumari Gupta, Advocates.

For Respondents: Ms. Sangita Pradhan, Deputy Solicitor
General of India with Ms. Sittal Balmiki
and Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, Advocates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Judgment reserved: 25/02/2026
Date of Judgment pronounced: 09/03/2026
Date of Judgment uploaded: 09/03/2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, CHIEF JUSTICE
…

J U D G E M E N T

The Petitioner, Vikash hails from a village in Sonbhadra (Uttar
Pradesh), and he is a matriculant. His family appears to be engaged in a
small farm in his native village. Like any village youth, he was quite
ambitious to enter public service. He applied for the post of Constable
(Washerman) in the service of Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), an armed force of
the Union Government. This application was in the year 2020. At that time,
he was only twenty-one (21) years old. He was selected in the vacancy of
Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category. The appointment order shows
that the appointment was purely temporary but likely to continue. His
probation was for a period of two (02) years from the date of appointment.
Page 2 of 9

WP(C) No.49 of 2025
(Vikash vs. Union of India & Ors.)
He was offered an appointment in the State of Sikkim. Accordingly, he
th
reported and joined duty as a Constable (Washerman) at 36 Bn SSB,
Geyzing on 05.03.2024.
[2] The Petitioner approached this Court, challenging the order passed by
the official Respondent on 17.08.2024 terminating his service. He had been
terminated with effect from 17.08.2024 for the reason that he had
suppressed involvement in two crimes while submitting declaration in the
SSB recruitment form and also while giving undertaking at the time of
joining SSB as a Constable.
[3] There is hardly any dispute about the fact that the Petitioner was
involved in two crimes and those crimes were not disclosed while submitting
application for recruitment and submitting response to verification at the
time of joining.
[4] The following were the crimes registered against him:
(i) FIR No. 56/2017 for offence under Sections 380/457 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 registered by police station
Chopan. The police filed the report. In the official report it is
stated that the complaint against the accused was false after
investigation. The final report was accepted by the Court.
(ii) The crimes registered against the Petitioner along with his
brothers in the year 2020 was registered as FIR No. 252/2020 for
offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC on 19.09.2020.
The offences were compoundable. The complainant and
Petitioner and others amicably settled the matter on
05.10.2023. Accordingly , the case resulted in the acquittal of the
Petitioner, upon the Court accepting a compromise.
[5] There can be little dispute as to the reasons for non-disclosure of the
first crime as Petitioner had no chance to know about the pendency of such
Page 3 of 9

WP(C) No.49 of 2025
(Vikash vs. Union of India & Ors.)
a case as police on investigation found that the complaint itself was false.
The question then arises how far non-disclosure of the second crime would
have an impact on his employment.
[6] Two aspects arise for consideration in this matter. The first relates to
a crime registered against the Petitioner in the year 2020 which ultimately
ended in acquittal upon a compromise arrived at with the complainant. The
second aspect concerns the alleged suppression of this case in application
form as well as in the verification form.
[7] Over the years, through judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court
and various High Courts, the legal position has been clarified that
involvement in trivial offences, and the non-disclosure of such offences, may
not necessarily have a bearing on public employment. In such
circumstances, the employer is at liberty to ignore the suppression and
condone the lapse as observed in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and
1
Others .

[8] In matters of public employment, there exists no precise mechanism
to assess the character of an individual except with reference to his public
conduct. The underlying object of such assessment is to ensure public

confidence in the image and integrity of public service.
[9] In a matter of this nature, Court is required to examine whether the
impugned decision reflects a diligent application of mind. The question then
arises as to what parameters ought to guide such an exercise. First, the
nature of the post in question is undoubtedly a relevant consideration.
Second, the social background of a candidate assumes considerable
significance. This aspect acquires particular importance within our
constitutional framework, wherein the nation strives to realize an egalitarian
society by progressively eliminating social and economic barriers. Before
analyzing this aspect we shall have to see some of the precedents which

1
(2016) 8 SCC 471
Page 4 of 9

WP(C) No.49 of 2025
(Vikash vs. Union of India & Ors.)
may have some bearing on this case. We shall first refer to the precedent
cited on behalf of the Petitioner.
2
Reference to Krishan Kumar Vs. Director General CISF & Ors . Learned
Counsel for the Petitioner argued that non-disclosure of past minor criminal
case does not automatically justify termination of employment and each
case must be evaluated on its specific facts and circumstances. Learned
Counsel for the Petitioner referring to the first crime registered against the
Petitioner in the year 2017 submitted that the Petitioner was a minor and
relied on the judgment of Delhi High Court in Santosh Kumar Yadav @
3
Ranjan Vs. Union of India & Ors. wherein it was held that a juvenile is not
required to disclose criminal antecedents in the employment applications as
per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
protecting them from stigma. The Petitioner also placed reliance on
4
Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others wherein the Apex
Court reiterated the principles laid down in Avtar Singh ( supra ) and opined
that employer is bound to consider all relevant facts valuable as to
antecedents while adjudging suitability of such candidate in public
employment. The Petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court
5
in Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar where the Apex Court
adopted a reformative approach rather than condemning a candidate for his
past criminal offence.
[10] The Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the Respondent has
6
placed reliance on Union of India and Others Vs. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen and
argued that mere suppression in the application form and the verification
form itself would establish the character of the candidate Petitioner and in a
disciplined force like SSB, such misconduct cannot be countenanced and
submitted that non-disclosure in application form and verification form

2
2024 DHC 8775
3
2025 DHC 426-DB
4
(2024) 5 SCC 264
5
2011 4 SCC 644
6
(2008) 11 SCC 314
Page 5 of 9

WP(C) No.49 of 2025
(Vikash vs. Union of India & Ors.)
would justify termination. Learned Deputy Solicitor General also relied on
7
Union of India and Others Vs. Shishu Pal alias Shiv Pal , wherein the Apex
Court held that if declaration given in the verification roll is found to be false
then termination can be justified.
[11] In Avtar Singh case ( supra) , the Apex Court laid down broad guidelines
as factors to be taken in consideration while exercising power of condoning
candidature or discharging his employment from service. It is appropriate to
refer to para 38.2 of the said case , “ 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 ” and para 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 for false information by condoning the lapse. ”
[12] I already noted in para 9 as to what aspects requires to be considered
in a matter like this. If this crime was disclosed in the application and
verification form, it could not have any impact on antecedents of the
Petitioner. None of this case would form part of material facts to dissuade a
prospective employer giving petitioner employment in public service. The
first crime was found to be false against the Petitioner. In second crime it is
apparently some sort of family dispute and no overt act attributed to the
Petitioner. It is to be noted that the offence was compounded and entered
in acquittal of the Petitioner. If these offences would not have bearing in
prospective employment, nothing prevents the Respondent employer in
condoning such lapse and ignoring those crimes. Our second aspect assumes
importance in this case where suppression of fact or false information
should be condoned as a mere lapse or not; here I need to have a broader
discussion.

7
2024 SCC Online SC 1769
Page 6 of 9

WP(C) No.49 of 2025
(Vikash vs. Union of India & Ors.)
[13] In Avtar Singh case (supra) in para 36 , it was held, “ 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 ” and in para 37 , “ The “McCarthyism” is
antithesis to constitutional goal, chance of reformation has to be afforded to
young offenders in suitable cases, interplay of reformative theory cannot be
ruled out in toto nor can be generally applied but is one of the factors to be
taken into consideration while exercising the power for cancelling
candidature or discharging an employee from service. ”
[14] In a matter of this nature, the employer cannot simply overlook
suppression of facts or the furnishing of false information. Such lapses must
be viewed with due seriousness, particularly in disciplined forces such as the
SSB . However while acting so, employer cannot remain oblivious to the
nature of the office. Where the post carries a higher level of responsibility,
involves public trust or requires the exercise of discretion, such conduct
would undoubtedly have to be viewed with greater disapproval. In positions
where the duties demand a higher degree of public confidence and
discretionary authority, even suppression relating to a trivial offence may
not be readily condoned. However, where the post in question carries no
significant element of discretion, public interface, or sensitive responsibility
in the discharge of duties, the matter may require a more nuanced
consideration. In such circumstances, the request for condonation of the
lapse may deserve deliberation in the light of the broader constitutional
goals of promoting equality and alleviating the disadvantages faced by
socially and economically backward sections of society.
[15] The Constitution envisages a social order in which ameliorative
measures are undertaken to address historical and structural disadvantages.
Page 7 of 9

WP(C) No.49 of 2025
(Vikash vs. Union of India & Ors.)
A person born into conditions of extreme poverty cannot always be
expected to exhibit the same social behavior as one whose character has
been shaped in a more advantageous environment. The psychological
construct of an individual is often influenced by the social and economic
circumstances into which he is born and raised. These realities cannot be
ignored while assessing issues relating to character and suitability in matters
of public employment.
It is appropriate to refer to an article, “ The psychology of social class:
How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings and behavior ,” by
8
Antony S R Manstead published in the British Journal of Social Psychology,
where the author has drawn distinction between socioeconomic status and
social class as culture. As highlighted in the article, “ material resources
available to working and middle class people create cultural identities that
are based on distinctive patterns of observable behaviour arising from
differences in wealth, education and occupation. To the extent that these
patterns of behaviour are both observable and reliably associated with
individual wealth, occupational prestige and education, they become
potential signals to others of a person’s social class ” and “ those who grow up
in middle or upper class environments are likely to have more material and
psychological resources available to them, and as a result have stronger
beliefs about the extent to which they can shape their own social outcomes;
by contrast, those who grow up in lower class environments are likely to
have weaker beliefs about their ability to control their outcomes. ” The
character assessment of a person therefore must be based on
understanding social inequalities that exist in our society. This is exactly the
reason the Constitution contemplates a substantial model of equality. In a
post like this Constable (Washerman), the lapse of this nature can be
condoned taking into consideration the social background of the Petitioner.

8
Manstead, A. S. R. (2018). The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings,
and behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology , https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12251 [Accessed on 5th March
2026]

Page 8 of 9

WP(C) No.49 of 2025
(Vikash vs. Union of India & Ors.)
If the employer continues to condemn him, that will remain as a stigma for
him and would be directly contradicting the Constitutional scheme of
amelioration.
It is appropriate to conclude this judgment quoting Oscar Wilde ,
“ every saint has a past, and every sinner has a future .”
[16] Accordingly, impugned order is set aside.
[17] In the peculiar circumstances of the case claim for arrears and salary is
declined. However, arrears prior to termination, if any, shall be paid within
three (03) weeks.
[18] Writ petition succeeds.
[19] Petitioner shall be permitted to continue in the service subject to
terms and conditions in the employment.



Chief Justice
tnb

Page 9 of 9