Termination for minor criminal antecedents and date of birth discrepancies without following natural justice is illegal.

The petitioner’s father died in harness on June 7, 2003. After initial denial and subsequent litigation (SCA No. 7215 of 2010 and LPA), the High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

Following contempt proceedings, the petitioner was appointed as Safai Kamdar (Class IV) on May 7, 2011.

However, on March 25, 2013, the respondent terminated his services on two grounds: (i) a discrepancy between the date of birth in his Birth Certificate and his School Leaving Certificate, and (ii) the existence of two past prohibition cases from 2007 and 2009.

The petitioner challenged this termination as arbitrary and in violation of natural justice, noting that the criminal cases resulted only in nominal fines (Rs. 50 and Rs. 100) and that he was never asked to disclose his criminal record during the application process.

1. Whether the termination of service based on a discrepancy in date of birth is valid when the petitioner is willing to be governed by the statutory Birth Certificate.

2. Whether the non-disclosure of past trivial criminal offences justifies termination when such information was never requisitioned by the employer at the time of appointment.

The court applied the principle from CIDCO v. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar (2009) 7 SCC 283, which establishes that entries in the statutory Birth Register prevail over school registers.

Regarding criminal antecedents, the court relied on Commissioner of Police v. Sandip Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 644, which held that minor indiscretions of youth should be condoned and trivial offences should not disqualify a candidate from service.

It also considered the principles of compassionate appointment as an exception to Articles 14 and 16, as discussed in State of Maharashtra v. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (2022).

The court found the termination unsustainable on both grounds. Regarding the date of birth, the court noted that the petitioner did not suppress any documents and the respondents issued the appointment after verifying his credentials.

Since the Birth Certificate carries a legal presumption of correctness over school records, and the petitioner filed an affidavit agreeing to abide by the Birth Certificate date, the discrepancy was not a valid ground for dismissal.

Regarding the criminal record, the court observed that the department's checklist did not require the petitioner to disclose past criminal cases; thus, there was no suppression of facts.

Furthermore, the prohibition cases were trivial, occurring years before the appointment and resulting only in nominal fines, and did not involve moral turpitude.

The court held that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

However, it clarified that the petitioner is bound by his undertaking that the date of birth recorded in the Birth Certificate shall be final for all service purposes, and he cannot claim any benefits based on the School Leaving Certificate.

Rule was made absolute.