### Termination for Concealment is Unsustainable if Criminal FIR Post-Dates Appointment and Joining.

The petitioner was appointed as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III on 06.07.2013 and joined service on the same day.

When the respondents failed to release his salary, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 4414/2015.

Subsequently, the respondents issued a show-cause notice on 01.03.2016 alleging that the petitioner had failed to sign character verification forms and had concealed information regarding an FIR (Crime No. 334/2013) registered against him.

Despite the petitioner’s reply asserting that the FIR was registered on 16.09.2013 (after his appointment), the respondents issued the impugned order dated 03.06.2016, cancelling his appointment.

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment on grounds of concealment of information was legally sustainable when the criminal case was registered post-appointment.

2. Whether the respondents’ action in summarily terminating the petitioner’s services violated the principles of natural justice and was arbitrary in nature.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding judicial review of administrative actions.

The Principle of Natural Justice, which necessitates a full-fledged inquiry and a finding of moral turpitude before terminating service based on criminal proceedings.

The principle that "concealment of information" cannot be attributed to an individual for events (such as an FIR) that did not exist at the time the attestation form was submitted or the appointment was made.

The Court observed that the petitioner joined service on 06.07.2013, whereas the FIR in question was registered on 16.09.2013.

Therefore, the allegation of concealment at the time of appointment was factually impossible and unsustainable.

The Court found that the respondents failed to consider the petitioner's detailed reply and ignored the chronological evidence, suggesting that the termination was a retaliatory measure for the petitioner seeking his withheld salary through previous litigation.

Furthermore, as the petitioner had not been convicted and no inquiry into moral turpitude was conducted, a summary cancellation of appointment was deemed arbitrary, capricious, and a violation of natural justice.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary, within three months.

The Court held that mere registration of an FIR subsequent to joining service is not a valid ground for summary dismissal.

However, the court granted the respondents liberty to take appropriate action should the petitioner be found guilty by a competent court in the pending criminal proceedings.