Employer justified in deferring appointment when serious criminal charges, involving moral turpitude, are pending.

The applicant, Ankeet, applied for the post of Junior Secretariat Assistant (JSA) under the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti's Direct Recruitment Drive 2021-22.

He qualified the Tier-I and Tier-II examinations, and an appointment letter dated 04.10.2023 was issued to him, directing him to join service by 20.10.2023.

The appointment letter also required an affidavit regarding any pending criminal or civil cases.

On 09.06.2023, the CBI registered an FIR (RC-219/2023/E-0015) and subsequently filed a charge sheet against the applicant for criminal conspiracy (Sections 120-B and 420 IPC) and Section 66 of the IT Act, alleging his involvement in rigging the NORCET-04 examination.

The applicant disclosed the pendency of this criminal proceeding in an affidavit.

Upon submission of the undertaking, the respondent no. 3 (The Principal, JNV Morbi) did not allow the applicant to join the post of JSA, citing the pending criminal case and awaiting a police verification report.

The respondents clarified that the applicant's candidature was not cancelled but was subject to the final outcome of the criminal case.

The applicant sought directions to be allowed to join service subject to the outcome of the trial or, alternatively, to prevent the cancellation of his candidature until trial conclusion.

1. Whether an applicant, who has been charge-sheeted in a criminal case and whose trial is pending, can claim a direction to be allowed to join service subject to the outcome of the trial, or alternatively seek a restraint against cancellation of his candidature.

The court cited Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 471, establishing that if a criminal case is pending and truthfully disclosed, the employer has discretion to consider the nature of the offense, stage of the case, and overall suitability, and may be justified in not appointing such a candidate without waiting for the outcome of the criminal case.

Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605, was referenced to state that even an acquittal does not preclude the employer from considering antecedents and suitability, affirming that appointment to public service is not a matter of right.

The Tribunal applied the principles from Avtar Singh and Sushil Kumar to the facts, noting that the applicant truthfully disclosed the pending criminal case.

However, the court emphasized that the charges against the applicant involved a conspiracy to rig a competitive examination, which constitutes moral turpitude and cheating in a public examination.

Such allegations directly impact the applicant's integrity and suitability for public employment.

Given that the criminal court had taken cognizance and the trial was pending, the employer's decision to defer joining until the final outcome of the criminal proceedings was deemed justified and not arbitrary.

The Tribunal clarified that the respondents had not canceled the candidature but only withheld joining, which aligns with the conditions in the appointment letter and the requirement for antecedent verification.

The applicant's plea based on Article 21 and the presumption of innocence, while attractive, could not override the settled principle that public employment is subject to suitability and character verification.

The presumption of innocence operates in criminal jurisprudence, but in service matters, employers can take a pragmatic view to safeguard institutional integrity.

The Tribunal found no illegality or arbitrariness in the respondents' action of not permitting the applicant to join service pending trial.

The relief sought for a direction to allow joining subject to the outcome of the trial was denied.

It was clarified that the applicant's candidature remains subject to the final outcome of the criminal case, and the respondents are directed to make an appropriate and expeditious decision after the conclusion of the trial.

There was no order as to costs.