Suppression of pending criminal prosecution in attestation form justifies termination of contractual government service.

The applicant was appointed as Superintendent at the National Institute of Design (NID), Assam, on a three-year contractual basis starting September 16, 2022

On October 26, 2022, the applicant submitted an "Attestation Form" wherein he answered "No" to queries regarding the pendency of any criminal cases

He also declared himself "unmarried" in a Marriage Declaration Form

In reality, a criminal case under Section 498A IPC, filed by his estranged wife, had been pending since November 2021

The applicant later informed the authorities of the case via letter on April 24, 2023, claiming his initial non-disclosure was a "bonafide mistake" based on a misinterpretation of a government notification regarding the withdrawal of cases

Following an internal inquiry, the respondents terminated his services on June 22, 2023, citing suppression of material facts

During the pendency of this O.A., the applicant was acquitted of the criminal charges on November 14, 2024

1. Whether the termination of the applicant’s contractual service on the grounds of non-disclosure and suppression of material facts in the Attestation Form was legally sustainable.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to reinstatement and renewal of his appointment order following his acquittal in the criminal case.

Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) OM dated 29.06.2016, which allows for the termination of employees who furnish false information or suppress factual information in the Attestation Form

Offer of Appointment dated 31.08.2022, specifically Clauses 7 and 8, which provide that services may be withdrawn or terminated without assigning reasons if credentials are found to be incorrect or if information is suppressed

The "Warning" cited in the Attestation Form itself establishes that suppression of factual information renders a candidate unfit for employment

The Tribunal found that the applicant admittedly concealed the existence of a pending criminal case and his marital status at the time of joining

Although the applicant claimed a "bonafide mistake," the record showed three court hearings had occurred before he joined NID, proving he was aware of the prosecution

The Tribunal reasoned that the integrity of the attestation process is paramount; thus, the subsequent acquittal does not erase the initial act of "misleading the authorities" through concealment

Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant was a contractual employee whose three-year term had effectively lapsed, and the post of Superintendent at NID Jorhat had since been abolished, making the prayer for reinstatement practically unfeasible

It held that the suppression of material facts regarding a criminal case and marital status justified termination under the terms of appointment and DoPT guidelines

The subsequent acquittal did not entitle the applicant to relief as the termination was based on the act of concealment itself, and the O.A. had become largely infructuous due to the expiry of the contract period and the non-existence of the vacancy