APPOINTMENT TERMINATION FOR SUPPRESSION OF CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS UPHELD DESPITE SUBSEQUENT ACQUITTAL.

The applicant, Pawan Kumar, sought compassionate appointment after his father, a Railway employee, died on December 5, 2013.

He was offered appointment as Technician Grade-III on March 3, 2015.

Prior to appointment, he was directed to furnish an affidavit regarding his family details and antecedents, including any criminal activities, with a warning that any false or doubtful information would lead to immediate termination without a show cause notice.

On February 9, 2015, the applicant filled out the form, stating in Para 12(1)(a) that he had neither been challaned nor arrested.

During his training period, a police verification report dated June 11, 2015, from the Police Superintendent, Begusarai, revealed three pending criminal cases against him: Criminal Case No. 109/2013, Criminal Case No. 124/2012, and Criminal Case No. 135/2012, all involving sections of the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST Act.

The police report also indicated that his character was not "Good".

Consequently, a show cause notice was issued on September 23, 2015, inquiring why he had not disclosed these cases.

The applicant replied on November 23, 2015, stating he was mentally disturbed due to his father's death and inadvertently failed to mention the cases, characterizing them as village disputes and false allegations.

Further letters dated March 31, 2016, and May 23, 2016, were issued asking for clarification.

The applicant submitted another representation on June 13, 2016, mentioning his acquittal in all three cases on June 8, 2016, and claiming he had disclosed the cases to a "concerned dealing assistant" in the office of Opposite Party No. 5, who allegedly advised him to ignore them.

However, this claim was not mentioned in his earlier explanations.

On August 26, 2016, his service was terminated during the training period.

1. Whether the termination of the applicant's service for suppression of material facts regarding pending criminal cases, despite subsequent acquittal and claims of inadvertent omission, was punitive, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.

General principles regarding suppression of material information by prospective government employees, emphasizing that such suppression can lead to termination of appointment or service.

Precedent of Rabindra Kumar Vs State of U.P. & Ors (2024) 5 SCC 264.

Requirement of a high degree of morality, character, and integrity for public servants.

Offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act 1989 are social crimes.

The court found that the applicant suppressed the fact of three pending criminal cases against him at the time of filling the declaration form, even though he had already been released on bail in all cases.

This omission occurred despite explicit warnings in the appointment letter dated January 22, 2015, that any doubtful, wrong, or forged information would result in immediate termination without a show cause notice.

The court noted inconsistencies in the applicant's explanations, specifically his claim of having informed a "dealing assistant" who advised him to ignore the cases.

This claim was made in his Original Application (OA) but was absent from his earlier written explanations dated November 23, 2015, and June 13, 2016, and no affidavit or corroborating evidence from the alleged employee was produced.

This suggested a lack of remorse and an attempt to cast false allegations on a government employee.

Furthermore, while the applicant was acquitted, the circumstances of the acquittals through "deeds of compromise" and the police report stating his character was "not good" raised doubts about his suitability for government service, which requires high morality and integrity.

The court distinguished the precedent of Rabindra Kumar, noting that in that case, the FIR was lodged after the application was sent, and the applicant was acquitted before the affidavit was submitted, and the police report termed his character "Excellent".

In contrast, the current applicant's cases were pending before his application, he suppressed this information, and his character was reported as "not good".

Given the suppression of material information, the inconsistencies in his explanations, and the nature of the offenses (including under the SC/ST Act), the court held that the termination order dated August 26, 2016, did not suffer from any irregularity.

Accordingly, the OA was dismissed.