Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NITIN W. SAMBRE, ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ
Mr. Jadhav Satish Vijay - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Ministry Of Home Affairs - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.7871 OF 2018
Decided On : 22-01-2025
(A) Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Recruitment Policy - Cancellation of appointment - The Petitioner’s candidature was canceled due to non-disclosure of a past criminal case, despite subsequent acquittal - The court found that the Petitioner had made a truthful declaration regarding his antecedents, and the cancellation was deemed illegal. (Paras 6, 27)
(B) Employment Law - Disclosure of Criminal Antecedents - The court emphasized that suppression of material information is critical, but minor lapses in documentation do not warrant disqualification, especially when the candidate has been acquitted. (Paras 24, 26)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner applied for the post of Constable/Driver in CISF, was provisionally selected, but later had his appointment canceled due to non-disclosure of a criminal case, despite being acquitted prior to the appointment. (Paras 2, 6)
Findings of Court:
The cancellation of the Petitioner’s appointment was illegal, and he was directed to be reinstated without back pay for the intervening period. (Paras 27, 28)
Issues: Whether the Petitioner suppressed information regarding his criminal antecedents and whether the cancellation of his appointment was justified. (Paras 8, 24)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Petitioner’s non-production of documents was a minor lapse and did not amount to suppression of material facts, especially given his acquittal. (Paras 24, 26)
Result: The impugned orders were quashed, and the Petitioner was reinstated. (Paras 27, 29)
JUDGMENT :
ASHWIN D. BHOBE J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. The Order dated 16.03.2016 of the Asst. Inspector General/Rectt. CISF HQrs New Delhi, which upheld the Order dated 04.03.2015 passed by the Respondent No.4, whereby the candidature of the Petitioner as Constable/Driver was canceled as “not suitable for appointment in Central Industrial Security Force”, on the ground of Petitioner, in the past being involved in a criminal case, are assailed in this petition.
Case of the Petitioner:-
a) Petitioner in the year 2013, applied for the post of Constable/Driver in Central Industrial Security Force (“CISF”).
b) By letter dated 25.11.2013, Petitioner was notified of the date (i.e. 10.12.2013) fixed for medical examination, at RTC, Bhilai, Uttai, Chhattisgarh.
c) Petitioner appeared for medical examination on10.12.2013 and submitted the Questionnaire Form.
d) Vide offer of appointment letter dated 15.12.2013, Petitioner was notified of being provisionally selected for appointment as a Constable/Driver. He was directed to report to the Principal CISF, RTC, Bhilai, Uttai, Chhattisgarh on 28.12.2013 for joining the post of Constable/Driver and to undergo basic training w.e.f. 30.12.2013. According to the terms and conditions outlined in the offer of appointment letter, the Petitioner was required to submit amongst other documents, the Attestation Form, containing Column No. 12, wherein Petitioner was required to declare his antecedents/information of criminal cases/involvement in any criminal case, if any, supported by documents, if the answers to the question was in the affirmative. Attestation Form contains an undertaking clause that any false declaration may lead to cancellation of the candidature.
e) On 28.12.2013, the Petitioner reported for training at RTC, Bhilai, Uttai, Chhattisgarh. Duly filled Attestation Form was submitted. Though, the Petitioner responded to the questions in Column No.12 of the Attestation Form, however filed an application dated 28.12.2013, requesting for time to submit copy of the FIR and Police Report.
f) Character & Antecedent Certificate, copy of FIR No. 07/13 dated 24.01.2013, registered under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, copy of Charge Sheet/ Final Report dated 04.05.2013 and copy of the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by the 1st Class Joint Judicial Magistrate, Islampur in Regular Criminal Case No. 117/2013, were subsequently submitted to the officials of CISF at RTC, Bhilai.
g) Within four days of the Petitioner joining the training, Petitioner was asked to leave the Training Center, without assigning any reason.
h) On 04.03.2015, Petitioner was served with the order canceling the offer of appointment dated 15.12.2013. Order dated 04.03.2015, records that the Standing Screening Committee of CISF having found the Petitioner not eligible for appointment in CISF, on the ground of the Petitioner being involved in criminal case.
i) Petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.11.2015, seeking reconsideration of his case.
j) By letter dated 16.03.2016, the Assistant Inspector General/Rectt. CISF HQrs, New Delhi, rejected the representation dated 23.11.2015.
k) Aggrieved, the Petitioner is before this Court seeking the following substantial reliefs:-
“A. The Hon’ble High Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the order passed by the CISF dated 16/03/2016 and04/03/2015.
B. The Hon’ble High Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order, directing the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner in service from the date of removal from the training centre i.e. 31/12/2013 and to pay all the salary.”
Case of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 :
3. Respondents have filed their reply dated 08.05.2019 opposing the petition. Respondents, amongst other documents have placed on record the “Attestation Form”, the undertaking given by t
The court ruled that minor lapses in disclosing criminal antecedents do not justify cancellation of employment, especially when the candidate has been acquitted.
A candidate's non-disclosure of a past acquitted criminal case does not automatically justify disqualification from public service; each case must be assessed on its merits and surrounding context.
Suppression of material information in employment forms can justify cancellation of candidature, and subsequent acquittal may not warrant consideration for selection/appointment, especially in cases ....
Suppressing minor criminal information does not automatically disqualify candidates for government service; context and fairness must guide the decision-making process.
The cancellation of a candidate's selection based solely on the registration of a criminal case, without evidence of complicity, is unjustified and reflects a lack of proper consideration of the fact....
Suppression of material facts regarding pending criminal cases has a clear bearing on the character, conduct, and antecedents of the employee, and can lead to termination of services.
Suppression in attestation form requires knowledge of fact; for low-level non-sensitive posts, non-disclosure of unaware pending trivial criminal case (acquitted) not material, does not axiomatically....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
