Mahendra Solanki Vs Commissioner Of Police & Anr

Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J

1. By way of present writ petition, petitioner challenges the order dated February 02, 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short Tribunal) dismissing the O.A. No.1872/2022 preferred on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside of termination order of the petitioner and for directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

2. In brief, Mahendra Solanki (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) had applied for recruitment to the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police Examination, 2020 and was provisionally selected subject to satisfactory verification of character and antecedents, medical fitness and final checking of documents. Petitioner was issued an offer of appointment on February 24, 2022 with directions to join basic training course commencing w.e.f. March 07, 2022 and he joined the training on March 15, 2022. On receiving verification report from S.P. Raisen (M.P.) vide letter dated March 28, 2022 it was revealed that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case bearing FIR No.103/2020 under Sections 294/323/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Umraoganj and had been acquitted by the concerned Court. The record of the petitioner was scrutinized by the respondents which revealed that in the attestation form filled by him on January 14, 2022, he had mentioned in Column No. 15 (1)(e)(f)(g)&(h) as under:

 In view of the concealment made by the petitioner in column no.15(i)(e)(f) about his involvement in the said FIR, the respondents passed the impugned order dated July 07, 2022 terminating the services of the petitioner with a direction to leave the Academy on July 07, 2022 itself.

3. In the aforesaid background, the O.A. was preferred by the petitioner before the Tribunal seeking quashing of the impugned order dated July 07, 2022 along with other consequential benefits.

4. On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended before the Tribunal that the FIR was the result of certain family disputes and the petitioner stood acquitted in the aforesaid FIR within a period of four weeks from the date of registration of the FIR even prior to filling up of the attestation form. It was also urged that the petitioner was not to benefit by concealing the fact of his involvement in the said FIR, while filling up the attestation form. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the nature of alleged offence, the respondents were required to consider the suitability of the petitioner for his continuation in service and should not have terminated the services in a mechanical manner on the sole ground of non-disclosure about his involvement in the said case in the attestation form. Reliance was further placed upon Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471 and Pawan Kumar v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 441.

5. Per contra, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents before the Tribunal that the petitioner concealed the involvement in criminal case from the respondents. Further, he had also given an undertaking on March 11, 2022 that he had not concealed in the application form as well in the attestation form and also declared that he had neither been involved in any criminal case nor arrested/prosecuted/convicted. It was urged that malafide intention is reflected in view of the concealment. It was also contended that the offer of appointment issued to the petitioner clearly stipulated that the same is subject to verification of character and antecedents. Reference was also made to Point No. 2 (A) (i) of the Standing Order No.398/2018 of Delhi Police regarding policy for deciding cases for provisionally selected candidates who have disclosed their involvement in criminal cases/acquittal/discharge etc or concealing the same while furnishing information in attestation form for the purpose of verification of ‘character and antecedents’. Reliance was further placed upon (i) State of Rajasthan and others v. Chetan Jeff, reported in AIR 2022 SUPREME COURT 274; (ii) Satish Chandra Yadav v.. Union of India and others, reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 532; & (iii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Ram Ratan Yadav, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 437.

6. Learned Tribunal in the facts and circumstances framed the following issues for adjudication:-

(i) Whether the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Avtar Singh (supra) and Pawan Kumar (supra) or that in the cases Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Ram Ratan Yadav(supra), Chetan Jeff (supra) and Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) is binding and are to be followed?

(ii) Whether the OA deserves to be allowed?

7. Further, having considered the judgments, learned Tribunal recorded its findings in paras 13 to 15 as under:-

13. In the above facts and circumstances and law as recorded hereinabove, we are of the considered view that once the precedence value of the Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) and also in Pawan Kumar (supra} besides in other catena of cases had already been considered extensively by the Hon 'ble Apex Court subsequently in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra}, we are bound by the law laid down by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra). As such the issue at para 10 (i} above is answered accordingly.

14. The facts of the case in hand, as mentioned above, make us to come to the conclusion that the issue at para 1 0 (ii} above deserves to be answered keeping in view what has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satish Chandra Yadav (supra). Accordingly, the answer to issue at para 10 (li) above is in negative.

15. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the present OA deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is in contravention of settled position of law as laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471. It is urged that in spite of concealment of facts regarding involvement of the petitioner in an FIR, the authority concerned was required to apply an objective criteria and consider all attending facts and circumstances like age of the applicant, nature of offence and his/her antecedents before passing an order of termination. The Tribunal is stated to have proceeded only on the basis that there was concealment of information but without considering that there had been no further evaluation as to the nature of offence, antecedents etc. The attestation form is also stated to be not specific as after posing a question regarding registration of FIR, it did not have any question to elicit if the applicant was acquitted. The petitioner is further stated to be with impeccable academic record and belongs to poor strata of society. It is further submitted that the present FIR pertains to an argument which the petitioner’s father had with his elder brother (uncle of the petitioner) over a property dispute and taking advantage of the situation, the sister-in-law (complainant) out of anger and vengeance lodged an FIR against the petitioner’s father, younger brother and petitioner with vague allegations of exchange of indecent words and physical assault. The offences under Section 323 and 506 IPC are stated to have been compromised which was accepted in the court and the trial was forwarded only under Section 294 IPC in which the petitioner was acquitted as the case was not supported by the witnesses on the point of assault and other allegations. The reliance placed by the Tribunal on Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India is stated to be misplaced since the factual position in the present case is stated to be distinguishable, inasmuch as the applicant in Satish Chandra Yadav had concealed the facts of criminal cases which were pending at the time of filling the verification form and the charges were grave in nature like 307 IPC. Whereas in the case of the petitioner, both at the time of filling up of application form as well as the attestation form, there was no pending case against the petitioner since he already stood acquitted in the said FIR registered after filling up of the application form and before the signing of attestation form.

 It is also urged that the Tribunal failed to consider the trivial nature of prosecution against the petitioner and the fact that incident did not involve moral turpitude and there was no supporting evidence to support role of the petitioner. Reliance is also placed upon Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India (supra), wherein considering the trivial nature of the criminal case, nature of post and duties to be discharged the order of discharge to the post of Constable (RPF) was set aside.

 Written submissions were also filed on record.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the contentions raised before the Tribunal and relied upon the undertaking taken from the petitioner before joining of training course on 11.03.2022. Reliance was further placed upon Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra), wherein the position of law prior and post Avtar Singh’s case stands referred. It was submitted that honesty and integrity of the petitioner was questionable in view of suppression of material fact in respect of his criminal antecedents. As such, the respondents did not commit any error in terminating the services of the petitioner.

10. It may be noticed that in Avtar Singh (supra), the issue had been referred for resolving of conflict of opinion in the various decisions of the Division Benches of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as noticed in Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P., (2012) 8 SCC 748, on the question of suppression of information or submitting false information in the verification form of having been criminally prosecuted, arrested or as to pendency of a criminal case.

 Having taken stock of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Ramashanker Raghuvanshi, (1983) 2 SCC 145, T.S. Vasudavan Nair v. Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, 1988 Supp. SCC 795, Commr. of Police v. Dhaval Singh, (1999) 1 SCC 246, Commr. of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644, Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., (2011) 14 SCC 709, Bank of Baroda v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, (1999) 2 SCC 247, Kamal Nayan Mishra v. State of M.P., (2010) 2 SCC 169, Union of India v. M. Bhaskaram, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 100, Delhi Admn. V. Sushil Kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav, (2003) 3 SCC 437, R. Radhakrishnan v. DG of Police, (2008) 1 SCC 660, Union of India v. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen, (2008) 11 SCC 314, Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India, (2010) 14 SCC 103, State of W.B. v. Sk. Nazrul Islam, (2011) 10 SCC 184, the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 29 to 32, 34 to 37 and conclusions in para 38 are pertinent to be noticed:

“29. The verification of antecedents is necessary to find out fitness of incumbent, in the process if a declarant is found to be of good moral character on due verification of antecedents, merely by suppression of involvement in trivial offence which was not pending on date of filling attestation form, whether he may be deprived of employment? There may be case of involving moral turpitude/serious offence in which employee has been acquitted but due to technical reasons or giving benefit of doubt. There may be situation when person has been convicted of an offence before filling verification form or case is pending and information regarding it has been suppressed, whether employer should wait till outcome of pending criminal case to take a decision or in case when action has been initiated there is already conclusion of criminal case resulting in conviction/acquittal as the case may be. The situation may arise for consideration of various aspects in a case where disclosure has been made truthfully of required information, then also authority is required to consider and verify fitness for appointment. Similarly in case of suppression also, if in the process of verification of information, certain information comes to notice then also employer is required to take a decision considering various aspects before holding incumbent as unfit. If on verification of antecedents a person is found fit at the same time authority has to consider effect of suppression of a fact that he was tried for trivial offence which does not render him unfit, what importance to be attached to such non-disclosure. Can there be single yardstick to deal with all kinds of cases?

30. The employer is given “discretion” to terminate or otherwise to condone the omission. Even otherwise, once employer has the power to take a decision when at the time of filling verification form declarant has already been convicted/acquitted, in such a case, it becomes obvious that all the facts and attending circumstances, including impact of suppression or false information are taken into consideration while adjudging suitability of an incumbent for services in question. In case the employer comes to the conclusion that suppression is immaterial and even if facts would have been disclosed it would not have adversely affected fitness of an incumbent, for reasons to be recorded, it has power to condone the lapse. However, while doing so employer has to act prudently on due consideration of nature of post and duties to be rendered. For higher officials/higher posts, standard has to be very high and even slightest false information or suppression may by itself render a person unsuitable for the post. However, same standard cannot be applied to each and every post. In concluded criminal cases, it has to be seen what has been suppressed is material fact and would have rendered an incumbent unfit for appointment. An employer would be justified in not appointing or if appointed, to terminate services of such incumbent on due consideration of various aspects. Even if disclosure has been made truthfully, the employer has the right to consider fitness and while doing so effect of conviction and background facts of case, nature of offence, etc. have to be considered. Even if acquittal has been made, employer may consider nature of offence, whether acquittal is honourable or giving benefit of doubt on technical reasons and decline to appoint a person who is unfit or of dubious character. In case employer comes to conclusion that conviction or ground of acquittal in criminal case would not affect the fitness for employment, incumbent may be appointed or continued in service.

31. Coming to the question whether an employee on probation can be discharged/refused appointment though he has been acquitted of the charge(s), if his case was not pending when form was filled, in such matters, employer is bound to consider grounds of acquittal and various other aspects, overall conduct of employee including the accusations which have been levelled. If on verification, the antecedents are otherwise also not found good, and in number of cases incumbent is involved then notwithstanding acquittals in a case/cases, it would be open to the employer to form opinion as to fitness on the basis of material on record. In case offence is petty in nature and committed at young age, such as stealing a bread, shouting of slogans or is such which does not involve moral turpitude, cheating, misappropriation, etc. or otherwise not a serious or heinous offence and accused has been acquitted in such a case when verification form is filled, employer may ignore lapse of suppression or submitting false information in appropriate cases on due consideration of various aspects.

32. No doubt about it that once verification form requires certain information to be furnished, declarant is duty-bound to furnish it correctly and any suppression of material facts or submitting false information, may by itself lead to termination of his services or cancellation of candidature in an appropriate case. However, in a criminal case incumbent has not been acquitted and case is pending trial, employer may well be justified in not appointing such an incumbent or in terminating the services as conviction ultimately may render him unsuitable for job and employer is not supposed to wait till outcome of criminal case. In such a case non-disclosure or submitting false information would assume significance and that by itself may be ground for employer to cancel candidature or to terminate services.

33. xx xx xx xx xx

34. No doubt about it that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess suitability and it is open to employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects.

35. Suppression of “material” information presupposes that what is suppressed that “matters” not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases.

36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects.

37. The “McCarthyism” is antithesis to constitutional goal, chance of reformation has to be afforded to young offenders in suitable cases, interplay of reformative theory cannot be ruled out in toto nor can be generally applied but is one of the factors to be taken into consideration while exercising the power for cancelling candidature or discharging an employee from service.

38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:

38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.

38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted:

38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.

38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.

38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.

38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.

38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.

38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.

38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.

38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.

38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestion falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.”

11. The position of law prior to Avtar Singh’s case (supra) has been also referred to in Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India and Ors. (supra). Also, the position of law and principles considered in various cases post Avtar Singh (supra) were discussed in Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) (i.e. Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Others v. Pradeep Kumar and Another, (2018) 1 SCC 797, State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Bunty, (2020) 17 SCC 654, State of Rajasthan and Others v. Love Kush Meena, (2021) 8 SCC 774, Union of India and Others v. Methu Meda, (2022) 1 SCC 1, Union of India (UOI) v. Dilip Kumar Mallick, (2022) 6 Scale 108, Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 532, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and another v. Anil Kanwariya, (2021) 10 SCC 136, Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2019) 17 SCC 696).

 It was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the reasons to refer and look into various decisions of the Supreme Court arose over a period of time since the principles of law laid in Avtar Singh as governing the subject are bit inconsistent. Further, the broad principles of law which should be made applicable to the litigations of such nature were laid down in para 69 of the judgment and may be beneficially reproduced:

“69. In such circumstances, we undertook some exercise to shortlist the broad principles of law which should be made applicable to the litigations of the present nature. The principles are as follows:

a) Each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by the public employer concerned, through its designated officials–more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society’s security. [See Raj Kumar (supra)]

b) Even in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. The acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post. It would be still open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether the candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post.

c) The suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification Form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee. If it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service.

d) The generalisations about the youth, career prospects and age of the candidates leading to condonation of the offenders’ conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided.

e) The Court should inquire whether the Authority concerned whose action is being challenged acted mala fide.

f) Is there any element of bias in the decision of the Authority?

g) Whether the procedure of inquiry adopted by the Authority concerned was fair and reasonable?”

12. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the principle that the acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post and it would still be open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine if the candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post. It was also held that the suppression of material information and making a false declaration in the verification relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc. has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee and in case the employee had suppressed or given false information, he can be terminated. It was further laid down that the Court should inquire whether the authority concerned whose action is being challenged acted malafide or is there any element of bias in the decision of the authority and whether the procedure of inquiry adopted by the authority concerned was fair and reasonable.

13. It may also be observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) also took note of the judgment passed by the three Judge Bench in Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2019) 17 SCC 696 and the observations in para 67 of the judgment are apt to be reproduced:

“67. Thus, this Court took the view that although employment opportunity is a scarce commodity in the present times being circumscribed within a limited vacancies yet by itself may not suffice to invoke sympathy for grant of relief where the credentials of a candidate may raise any question regarding his suitability, irrespective of eligibility. However, at the same time, this Court observed that there should not be any mechanical or rhetorical incantation of moral turpitude to deny appointment in a government service simplicitor which would depend on the facts of each case. The judicial philosophy flowing through the mind of the judges is that every individual deserves an opportunity to improve, learn from the past and move ahead in life for self-improvement.

To make past conduct, irrespective of all considerations, may not always constitute justice. It would all depend on the fact situation of the given case.”

14. It is imperative to note that the aforesaid broad guidelines/conclusions referred in para 69 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satish Chandra’s case in no manner overrule the yardsticks as laid down in Avtar Singh’s case as reflected in para 38.1 to 38.11 above, which is a three Judge Bench judgment. The broad principles have been laid down considering the fact that different courts enunciated different principles over a period of time.

 The observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 31 in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (supra) are pertinent to be considered and may be reproduced:

“31. Coming to the question whether an employee on probation can be discharged/refused appointment though he has been acquitted of the charge(s), if his case was not pending when form was filled, in such matters, employer is bound to consider grounds of acquittal and various other aspects, overall conduct of employee including the accusations which have been levelled. If on verification, the antecedents are otherwise also not found good, and in number of cases incumbent is involved then notwithstanding acquittals in a case/cases, it would be open to the employer to form opinion as to fitness on the basis of material on record. In case offence is petty in nature and committed at young age, such as stealing a bread, shouting of slogans or is such which does not involve moral turpitude, cheating, misappropriation, etc. or otherwise not a serious or heinous offence and accused has been acquitted in such a case when verification form is filled, employer may ignore lapse of suppression or submitting false information in appropriate cases on due consideration of various aspects.”

15. It is also imperative to point out that in Pawan Kumar v. Union of India (supra), the appeal was directed against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi upholding the order of discharge taking recourse to Clause 9(F) of the employment notice read with Rule 67.2 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. In the aforesaid case, the FIR under Section 148/149/323/506/356/ IPC was registered against the appellant on 04.04.2011, the charge-sheet was filed on 13.04.2011 and the appellant was acquitted on 12.08.2011. The aforesaid facts were not disclosed by the appellant when he filled the attestation form on 27.05.2014 with reference to the columns relating to his prosecution and was discharged from the service on 24.04.2015. The case was admittedly not pending when the process of selection was initiated vide employment notice dated 27.02.2011. The appellant therein also incorrectly disclosed the information with reference to the columns relating to arrest/prosecution and the attestation form also contained a warning that furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the attestation form would be a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under government.

 After considering the legal position laid down in Avtar Singh (supra) which was given by a three-Judge Bench, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar (supra) held in para 13 as under:-

“13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What being noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service.”

 It was further held that the Authority therein had not considered the scope and ambit of Rule 52 of the Railway Protection Post Rules, 1987 that after verification of the character/antecedents of the incumbent it will be an obligation upon the authority to examine as to whether the incumbent/recruit is suitable to become a member of the Force and without appreciation in a mechanical manner confirmed the order of discharge. It was also held that as observed in Avtar Singh’s case (supra), all matters cannot be put in a straitjacket and a degree of flexibility and discretion vests with the Authorities which must be exercised with care and caution taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, including the nature and type of offence. The appellant was accordingly directed to be reinstated to the service on the post of Constable on which he was selected.

16. It may also be pointed out that while referring to various cases decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a reference was also made in Avtar Singh (supra) to a three Judge Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in TS Vasudavan Nair v. Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, 1988 Supp. SCC 795, which related to non disclosure of conviction in a case registered under the Defence of India Rules for having shouted slogans on one occasion. The three Judge Bench in the aforesaid case held that non disclosure of aforesaid case was not a material suppression on the basis of which employment could have been denied and the person adjudged unsuitable for being appointed as an LDC.

17. In the light of aforesaid legal position, there cannot be any dispute that an applicant participating in the selection process is mandated to furnish the correct information in respect of character and antecedents in the requisite application form as well as attestation/verification form. In case the information is found to be suppressed, concealed or incorrectly declared and later on comes to the knowledge of the employer, appropriate recourse may be adopted by the employer in its discretion for cancelling the candidature or terminating the services of the employee. However, the exercise of power has to be in a reasonable manner with objectivity having regards to the facts in each case. The yardstick to be applied depends not only on the nature of the post, duties/services but as well as the nature of criminal involvement i.e. whether it is of trivial nature or otherwise. Even where the employee makes a truthful declaration on a concluded criminal case, the employer still has a right to consider the antecedents and the employer cannot be compelled to employ the candidate.

18. We are of the considered view that keeping in perspective the guidelines as laid down in Avtar Singh (supra), the competent authority in the present case was also bound to consider the suitability of the petitioner having regard to the trivial nature of offence and the fact that the charges were neither grave nor involved moral turpitude, prior to terminating his services. The same is necessary to ensure that inquiry done by the Authority concerned is ‘fair and reasonable’ as contemplated even in Satish Chandra’s case (supra). In the absence of said exercise being undertaken, the fact of suppression or concealment of involvement even in trivial cases would lead to automatic cancelling of candidature or termination of services, in violation of guidelines envisaged in para 38.4.1 as laid down in Avtar Singh’s case (supra), referred to above.

19. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, admittedly, on the date of filling up of the application form, the petitioner was not involved in any criminal case. Unfortunately, he stood implicated in FIR No.103/2020 dated October 11, 2020 under Section 294/323/506/34 IPC registered at PS: Umraoganj, owing to a family dispute, in which he was acquitted on November 06, 2020 within a short period of about four weeks. The relevant details of involvement in criminal case were concealed while filling the attestation form, which has been considered to be a disqualification rendering the petitioner unfit for employment.

 It needs to be kept in perspective that the petitioner was not facing any criminal case at the time of filling up of the initial application form. The FIR was registered under Sections 294/323/506/34 IPC only prior to filling up of attestation form, in which he also stood acquitted prior to filling up of the attestation form. The incident on the face of record related to a trivial dispute within the family over raising a wall and stood settled with reference to offences under Section 323/506/34 IPC. Further, the allegations with reference to Section 294 IPC were not supported by the witnesses on presenting of charge-sheet. The false implication in such minor incidents naming all the family members cannot be ruled out considering the tendency in rural background. In the facts and circumstances, the respondents should have considered and examined whether petitioner is suitable and fit for appointment in view of involvement in said case, in which he stood acquitted even prior to filling up the attestation form. The inquiry as to the nature of involvement was required to be fairly conducted and the petitioner should not have been automatically held unsuitable for appointment merely on the ground of concealment. The competent authority appears to have failed to consider and give due weight to the trivial nature of offence and was merely swept by the factum of non-disclosure or concealment of involvement in criminal case by the petitioner.

 The factual position in the present case is distinguishable from Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) since the appellant in said case had concealed the fact of involvement in criminal case under Section 147/323/324/504/506 IPC which was pending at the time of filling the verification form. Also, the second case referred in Satish Chandra Yadav, arising out of SLP (Civil) 5170 of 2021 filed by Pushpendra Kumar Yadav, was dismissed on similar grounds as a case under Section 147/149/323/325/504/506/307 IPC was pending against him as wrong information had been given in the verification form.

 On the other hand, the factual position in present case is squarely covered by Pawan Kumar v. Union of India (supra).

20. For the foregoing reasons, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside along with order passed by the respondents terminating the services of the petitioner. Respondents are accordingly directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all notional benefits including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits etc. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.