False declaration of pending criminal cases justifies cancellation of appointment, regardless of subsequent conviction nature.

The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) published a notice on March 1, 2014, inviting applications for Junior Engineer (JE) posts, for which the Applicant, Chirag Goyal, applied.

He qualified the preliminary and main examinations and was called for an interview on March 20, 2015.

During the interview, he submitted a Bio-data Form with a declaration stating, among other things, that no charge-sheet was pending against him in any court of law and that all statements were true, with a caveat that false information would lead to cancellation of candidature/appointment.

An offer of appointment for the post of JE (Civil) was issued to him on October 7, 2015.

However, it was discovered that an FIR No. 166/14 dated April 10, 2014, had been filed against him, and a charge-sheet had been filed by the police before the competent court, with the trial ongoing.

This was the case both at the time of his declaration on March 20, 2015, and his reporting for joining on November 4, 2015.

The Applicant was not allowed to join and subsequently submitted a representation on November 26, 2015, along with a notarized undertaking, claiming innocence and false implication in the case, stating he had been granted bail on May 24, 2014, by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan and expected exoneration soon.

Respondent No. 3 (Chief Engineer, South Western Command) granted an extension for joining until April 6, 2016, via letter dated December 14, 2015, stating that joining was subject to clearance from the Court of Law and higher HQs.

The matter was also referred to the SSC for clarification.

When the Applicant failed to provide proof of acquittal by April 6, 2016, his offer of appointment was cancelled by Respondent No. 3 via letter dated May 12, 2016.

It was later revealed that the Applicant was acquitted of charges under Sections 307, 342, 458 read with Section 34 of the IPC but was found guilty of offenses under Sections 323 & 341 of the IPC by the Sessions Court on September 28, 2016, and released on probation.

His appeal against this conviction was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan on July 3, 2023, which upheld his involvement in wrongful restraint and use of criminal force, inflicting injuries.

Whether the Applicant's offer of appointment was rightly cancelled due to suppression of material facts and false declaration regarding a pending criminal case.

Whether the criminal case against the Applicant could be considered trivial, such that the non-disclosure/false declaration should be ignored.

Whether the subsequent conviction of the Applicant in the criminal case justified the cancellation of his appointment.

The court primarily relied on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in *Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.* [(2016) 8 SCC 471] regarding suppression of information or false declaration in verification forms concerning criminal prosecution, arrest, or pendency of a criminal case.

This judgment emphasized that information given to the employer must be true, with no suppression or false mention.

It established that if a conviction in a non-trivial case is recorded, the employer may cancel candidature, but in trivial cases, the employer may, at its discretion, ignore the suppression.

Furthermore, the court referred to *Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Anr. Vs. Anil Kanwariya* [(2021) 10 SCC 136], which held that subsequent benefit under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act does not negate a false declaration, and the employer retains the right not to appoint an untrustworthy employee who made a false statement at the initial stage.

The court also applied the principles from *Mrs. Veeda Menezes vs Yusuf Khan and Anr.* [1966 AIR 1773] to determine if an act was 'trivial', considering the nature of injury, position of parties, knowledge, and intention.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant made a false declaration on March 20, 2015, stating that no charge-sheet was pending against him, despite an FIR being filed on April 10, 2014, and cognizance taken on October 9, 2014.

This suppression occurred at the material stage of the interview, prior to the offer of appointment.

The Applicant's later disclosure on November 4, 2015, did not erase the initial concealment.

The court also determined that the criminal charges, involving wrongful restraint and use of criminal force inflicting injuries, were not trivial in nature, contrary to the Applicant's counsel's arguments.

This non-triviality was reinforced by his conviction under Sections 323 and 341 of the IPC, which was upheld by the High Court.

The Tribunal distinguished the Applicant's case from *Pawan Kumar vs Union of India* [2022 SCC OnLine SC 532] due to significant factual differences, including the timeline of the FIR, the nature of allegations, and the outcome of the trial.

Applying *Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Anr. Vs. Anil Kanwariya* [para. 19], the Tribunal emphasized that the Applicant’s false declaration at the outset compromised trust and entitled the employer to cancel the appointment, irrespective of release on probation.

The Tribunal held that the Applicant's candidataure/appointment was rightly cancelled because he suppressed material information and made a false declaration regarding the pendency of a criminal case at the time of his interview.

The criminal case against him was not found to be trivial, and his subsequent conviction further justified the Respondents' decision.

The Respondents' cancellation of the offer of appointment dated October 7, 2015, conveyed via letters dated December 14, 2015, March 15, 2016, and May 12, 2016, was upheld.

The Applicant was found not to be entitled to appointment as a matter of right, and the Respondents could not be forced to employ him.