Concealment of material facts in attestation form renders candidate ineligible for employment.

The applicant, Ajesh U, was appointed as Middle Grade-I by the first respondent, HLL Life Care Limited, and was placed on probation for one year

During this period, he received Annexure A2 notice of termination alleging that he had concealed his involvement in criminal cases when applying for the position

The applicant had submitted Annexure R2(a) Attestation Form on April 3, 2025, where, in response to specific questions about arrests, detention, or fines by a court of law, he marked his answer as 'No'

However, a report from the District Police Chief (Annexure A3) dated December 31, 2025, indicated that the applicant was involved in five criminal cases, including Cr. 1710/2015, Cr. 1435/2017, and Cr. 34/2020, in all of which he was acquitted after trial

Additionally, in one case, Cr. 110/2022, he pleaded guilty and was fined

Crucially, one criminal case, Cr. 44/2023, was pending under section 55(1) of the Abkari Act on the date he submitted the Attestation Form

The show cause notice was consequently challenged in the present Original Application

Whether the applicant's concealment of involvement in criminal cases, particularly a pending case, rendered him ineligible for the post

Whether there are grounds to interfere with the show cause notice issued by the respondents

The court relied on the principle established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in *State of U.P. v. Dinesh Kumar [2026 AIR SC 546]*, which holds that the concealment of material facts in attestation and verification forms renders a candidate ineligible for the post

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had explicitly denied any involvement in criminal cases, arrests, detention, or fines in his Attestation Form

This assertion directly contradicted the police report, which revealed that the applicant had a history of involvement in several criminal cases, and significantly, one case (Cr. 44/2023) was still pending on the date he submitted the form

The Tribunal emphasized that these were "crucial facts" that the applicant had knowingly suppressed

By failing to disclose these material facts in the attestation form, the applicant acted contrary to the established legal principle, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in *State of U.P. v. Dinesh Kumar*, that such concealment makes a candidate ineligible for the position

The court found that the applicant's actions constituted a clear suppression of material information, thereby justifying the show cause notice.

Consequently, finding no reason to interfere with the show cause notice, the Original Application was dismissed

No costs were awarded