"Employer cannot deny appointment solely due to disclosed, trivial criminal case especially post-conclusion."

The applicant, Ajesh Kumar Dwivedi, a visually impaired individual (60% impairment), applied for the post of Tradesman Mate under the PwBD category

He successfully qualified the written examination

An offer of appointment was issued on June 7, 2023, requiring him to report to the Central Ordnance Depot, Agra by July 7, 2023

During document verification, it was revealed that a criminal case (U/s 294, 323, 506, 34, 324, and 325 of IPC) was pending against him in Police Station, Sagra since October 17, 2021

The applicant had truthfully disclosed the pendency of this case in his application and attestation form

Initially, Respondent No. 5 requested Respondent No. 2 to grant an extension to the applicant to join after the criminal case was cleared

However, subsequently, an order dated March 26, 2024, was issued by Respondent No. 5 cancelling the offer of appointment, citing the pending criminal case and inability to verify character and antecedents

The respondents relied on a DoPT circular dated June 29, 2016, which states that provisional appointment will be cancelled if character and antecedents are not verified or false information is given

During the pendency of the Original Application, the criminal cases (No. 10549/2021 and No. 9103/2021) were disposed of by the Judicial Magistrate, Class-I, Rewa, vide order dated April 22, 2025, due to a compromise between the parties

Whether the cancellation of the applicant's offer of appointment by Respondent No. 5 based on the pendency of a criminal case, despite truthful disclosure by the applicant, was illegal, arbitrary, and malafide

Whether the DoPT circular dated June 29, 2016, regarding verification of character and antecedents, was applicable to the applicant's case where there was no suppression of facts

Whether, in light of the criminal case being closed by the competent court, the applicant should be permitted to join the post of Tradesman Mate with consequential benefits

The Tribunal primarily relied on the principles laid down by the Hon's Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471

This precedent distinguishes between suppression of material information and seeking appointment through forged/fraudulent means, holding that while suppression cannot be condoned, it is not equivalent to fraud

It further establishes that the yardstick for assessing suitability depends on the nature of the post, with lower, non-sensitive posts allowing for consideration of the impact of suppression on suitability

Specifically, the judgment provides guidelines under Para 30 for handling cases involving conviction, acquittal, or pendency of criminal cases, emphasizing that truthful declaration in the character verification form regarding a criminal case of trivial nature allows the employer discretion to appoint the candidate, especially when no suppression exists

The court also considered DoPT OM No. 18011/2(s)/2016-Estt.(B)(i) dated June 29, 2016, which states that an offer of appointment would be cancelled if character and antecedents are not found verified

The Tribunal found that the applicant had truthfully disclosed the pendency of the criminal case, thus distinguishing his situation from cases involving suppression or false information

The respondents' reliance on the DoPT circular dated June 29, 2016, was deemed inapplicable because the applicant had not suppressed any information

Applying the principles from Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., especially Para 30(1) and 30(6), the Tribunal noted that the applicant's truthful declaration and the minor nature of the offence (property dispute) meant that the employer had the discretion to consider his appointment

The fact that the criminal case had subsequently been closed by the competent court due to a compromise further strengthened the applicant's position, removing the initial impediment cited by the respondents

The Tribunal highlighted that the employer's earlier advice to the applicant to get the case cleared indicated an expectation of finalization, which has now occurred

Therefore, denying appointment based on a resolved, truthfully declared, and minor criminal matter would be arbitrary.

The Tribunal held that there was merit in the applicant's prayer, especially given his truthful disclosure of the criminal case and its subsequent closure by the competent court

The respondents were directed to consider the applicant's case for the post of Tradesman Mate, subject to the availability of a vacancy

This exercise is to be completed within 90 days from the date of the order