Hon'ble RASTOGI, J.—Instant petition is directed against order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal dt.01.09.2011 declining to interfere in the order dt.16.09.2009 whereby the petitioner's appointment/selection was cancelled for the post of Junior Telecom Officer (JTO) on the pretext that he suppressed material information while the application form was filled, at the stage of participating in the selection process for JTO Examination, 2007.

2. The salient facts which are relevant for appreciation of the present controversy are that the respondents issued an advertisement for selection to the post of JTO by open Competitive Examination, 2007. The examination was conducted on 15.06.2008 in which the petitioner was declared successful on the basis of merit and it was subject to provisionally fulfillment of eligibility conditions. At that stage, the petitioner was required to submit necessary information in the attestation form and in Clause (13) thereof, the petitioner was required to disclose information regarding pendency of criminal cases/trial, if any initiated against him. The information which was desired to be disclosed by the petitioner/applicant in Clause (13) of the attestation form (Ann.2), he indicated both the cases which were registered against him. In Criminal Case No.454/2002 he was acquitted of the charges levelled against him vide judgment dt.04.01.2003 and another Criminal Case No.113/2004 (328/2005) registered against the petitioner for offence u/S.452/34 & 323 IPC and after the chargesheet was filed, parties arrived at a compromise as regards charge u/S.323 IPC and as regards charge u/S.452/34 IPC, this being non-compoundable offence, as usual, the petitioner accepted his guilt and after recording of guilt for offence u/S.452/34 IPC, he was granted benefit of probation u/S.4 of the Probation of Offenders Act but since there was no sentence which was to undergo and the petitioner being unaware of niceties & terminology as to what will be the effect of distinction between 'acquittal' or 'benefit of probation' in the attestation form Clause (13), he mentioned that he was acquitted of the charges by judgment dt.01.10.2005. Obviously, when the case was sent for police verification, the District Magistrate, Kota sent his report dt.13.07.2009 that in Criminal Case No.328/2005 chargesheet was filed against the petitioner u/S.452 & 323 IPC but after being convicted u/S.452/34 IPC, he was granted benefit of probation u/S.4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and the Court bound down him to pay Rs.2,000/- and ordered him to that during the period of two years, the petitioner shall not indulge in any crime and shall maintain peace and treating it to be an act of concealment, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dt.15.04.2009 and with the follow-up action, he was declared disqualified and selection was cancelled vide order dt.16.09.2009 and further letter was issued to him dt.30.10.2009 directing him to deposit the bond amount, training expenses and stipend paid during the training and other expenses.

3. This was challenged by the petitioner by filing Original Application before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal considered the fact which was indicated in Clause 13(ii) of the attestation form where the petitioner indicated that he faced trial but was finally acquitted, however, the fact is that he was granted benefit of probation u/S.4 of the Act with furnishing of bond of Rs.2,000/- for maintaining peace for next two years. It was considered to be a suppression of facts on part of the petitioner, which he was supposed to indicate/disclose in Clause (13) of the attestation form and in furtherance thereof the respondents cancelled his selection and that was upheld by the learned Tribunal under order impugned dt.01.09.2011.

4. The main thrust of submission of counsel for petitioner is that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document