Employers must individually assess criminal antecedents and job suitability before denying appointment.

The applicant was selected for appointment as Track Maintainer Grade-IV with South Central Railway, and an offer of appointment was issued on 26 April 2023.

During verification, the respondents found a pending criminal case against him under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 427 of the IPC and did not permit him to join.

He was acquitted on 26 September 2023; the prosecution authorities later confirmed that no appeal had been filed.

The respondents nevertheless declined to consider him for appointment, stating generally that candidates involved in criminal cases could not be considered for Government service.

The applicant sought a direction permitting him to join.

The Tribunal considered the respondents’ decision and the applicant’s reliance on Avtar Singh v. Union of India.

1. Whether the respondents could reject the applicant’s appointment on the general ground of his involvement in a criminal case, without assessing the case’s merits and circumstances, the acquittal, and the nature of the post.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to be directed to join, or whether the matter required fresh consideration by the respondents under the principles in Avtar Singh.

Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant invoked the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to seek relief concerning his appointment.

The Tribunal applied Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 471, which holds that an employer may assess a candidate’s character and antecedents, but its decision must rest on objective consideration of relevant circumstances, applicable rules and instructions, the nature of the post, and the effect of the criminal case on suitability. An acquittal does not by itself compel appointment; the employer must assess the circumstances and the nature of the acquittal before deciding suitability.

The respondents’ stated reason—that persons involved in criminal cases may not be considered for Government service—was a blanket conclusion, not an assessment of the applicant’s individual circumstances.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had been acquitted and that no appeal had been filed, yet the respondents had not examined the merits and nature of the case, the acquittal, or the duties of the Track Maintainer-IV post. The decision therefore did not reflect the objective, case-specific consideration required by Avtar Singh.

The Tribunal did not itself determine that the applicant was suitable or entitled to appointment; it required the respondents to make that determination afresh in accordance with law.

A fresh decision, supported by a reasoned and speaking order and communicated to the applicant, was to be made within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The Tribunal did not direct the respondents to appoint or permit the applicant to join. No order as to costs.