Non-disclosure of petty offenses or acquitted cases in attestation forms is not an automatic ground for disqualification.

The applicant, a physically challenged individual from the SC category, was selected for the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) at JIPMER in 2010

While other candidates received appointment orders, the applicant’s appointment was deferred due to a pending criminal case (FIR No. 377 of 2000)

Following a High Court direction, the trial court acquitted the applicant of all charges on 31.03.2015

Upon seeking his appointment order post-acquittal, the respondents issued an impugned order dated 02.03.2016, cancelling his selection on the ground of suppressing material information in his attestation form regarding prior petty convictions and the then-pending FIR

The applicant contended he was unaware of the older cases and that the suppression was not intentional

1. Whether the non-disclosure of a criminal case or prior conviction in a verification form must invariably be treated as fatal to a candidate’s employment

2. Whether the respondents’ cancellation of the applicant’s selection, despite his acquittal in the primary case and the petty nature of other cases, was arbitrary and legally sustainable

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016), which established that while an employer has the right to verify antecedents, the power to cancel candidature must be exercised reasonably and objectively, especially for non-sensitive posts

It further relied on Ravindra Kumar v. State of UP (2024), which held that a "one size fits all" approach to non-disclosure is unjust and that trivial or petty matters (such as those involving youth or minor fines) should be viewed through a reformative lens rather than as an automatic disqualification

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s undisclosed criminal history consisted of two petty cases from 2001 where nominal fines of ₹40 and ₹50 were paid, and one case (Crime No. 377/2000) that resulted in a full acquittal

Applying the Avtar Singh yardstick, the Tribunal observed that for a lower, non-sensitive post like LDC, the impact of suppression on "suitability" must be weighed against the nature of the offenses

The court found that the omission likely stemmed from an "apprehension of disqualification" rather than a fraudulent intent to mislead. Given that the offenses were not of a heinous nature (e.g., murder or dacoity), a pragmatic and lenient view was warranted to prevent permanent branding of the individual as a criminal for minor past indiscretions

The Tribunal allowed the OA and quashed the impugned order dated 02.03.2016. The respondents were directed to issue the appointment order for the post of LDC based on the original 2010 selection within three months. The applicant was granted all notional benefits, including seniority, but was denied arrears of salary on the principle of "no work, no pay"