Subsequent acquittal does not retrospectively cure nondisclosure of pending criminal cases or confer a right to reinstatement.

The applicant was appointed as a Tailor/Semi-Skilled worker and, while completing his attestation form, did not disclose several criminal cases then pending against him.

After verifying the cases and issuing a show-cause notice, the respondents terminated his services during probation on 24 March 2005.

Following his acquittals in 2008, 2015 and 2017, he sought reconsideration; the respondents rejected his request on 16 June 2017.

He challenged both the rejection and the 2005 termination before the Tribunal.

1. Whether the applicant’s failure to disclose the pending criminal cases justified termination of his services during probation

2. Whether the applicant’s subsequent acquittals required the respondents to restore or reconsider his employment

3. Whether the challenge to the 2005 termination was liable to be dismissed for delay

Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, an aggrieved person may apply to the Tribunal for redress.

The Tribunal applied the principle that a candidate or employee must accurately disclose information specifically sought in an attestation form, and that describing an omission as inadvertent does not, by itself, remove the consequences of non-disclosure.

It also applied the principle that subsequent acquittal does not automatically confer a right to appointment or reinstatement, and that an employer may assess suitability, particularly during probation.

Relying on Anil Bhardwaj v. Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) 13 SCC 323, and Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration v. Pradeep Kumar, Civil Appeal Nos. 67–70 of 2018, decided 8 January 2018, the Tribunal held that an employer’s suitability decision is not ordinarily to be displaced absent arbitrariness or mala fides; it also referred to Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685, concerning the finality of a screening committee’s decision unless mala fide.

The Tribunal further held that a later representation does not revive a stale cause of action where the original service order was not challenged in time and the delay is inadequately explained.

The applicant admitted that the criminal cases were pending when he completed the attestation form but argued that he had left the relevant column blank by mistake.

The Tribunal found that the information was specifically required, the cases were verified, and the applicant had received an opportunity to explain before termination; it therefore found no procedural unfairness in the probationary termination.

It held that the later acquittals did not alter the fact that the cases were pending when disclosure was required and did not create an automatic entitlement to re-engagement.

The Tribunal also found the challenge to the 2005 order substantially delayed and unsupported by a satisfactory explanation; the later representation could not revive that claim.

Finally, it found no material showing that either the termination or the 2017 rejection was mala fide, arbitrary, or based on irrelevant considerations.

Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.