Non-disclosure of a pending criminal case in employment applications must be evaluated against the nature of the charges and the context of acquittal, impacting the candidate's suitability for service.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the Union of India to challenge the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 17.02.2021 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.17475/2018. This litigation has checkered history. Briefly stated the facts are as under:-

The respondent-original petitioner was serving as a Constable-cum-Driver with CISF. Before his selection and appointment in CISF, a criminal complaint involving offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 341 of IPC was lodged against him on 07.11.2003. After his selection and before appointment, he had to fill up an attestation form making necessary declarations regarding his involvement in any criminal offence. He filled up such attestation form on 28.10.2007 on which date admittedly the said criminal case was pending. He however did not declare such pending criminal proceedings against him. On 21.11.2007 he was acquitted of the charges on a compromise entered into between the parties.

When the employer came to know about the pendency of criminal proceedings on the date of appointment and non- disclosure by the employee of such pendency, a charge-sheet was issued on 18.04.2009 for major penalty. The petitioner admitted that he had not made the disclosure of the pending criminal case but sought to explain it by suggesting that he was a young man at the time and a compromise had already been arrived at the time of making the declaration. On 11.07.2009, the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of reduction of pay by one stage. The DIG of CISF however took this order of the disciplinary authority in revision in terms of Rule 54 of CISF Rules, 2001 and on 09.03.2010 awarded a penalty of dismissal from service on the petitioner. The petitioner's appeal against such order was dismissed by the appellate authority on 23.06.2010. His further revision was also dismissed. He thereupon filed Writ Petition No.8190/2012 which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 16.02.2018. In such order after referring to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 the learned Single Judge quashed the order of dismissal and gave following directions:-

"This petition deserves to be allowed in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to file a detailed representation before the Appointing Authority for re-consideration of his case in the context of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) and of this Court in the case of Kamal Singh Meena (supra). The Appointing Authority is directed to decide the representation filed by the petitioner by reasoned and speaking order with reference to the judgments as indicate above, within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of the representation.

The writ petition stands allowed accordingly."

The entire question was considered by the Revisional Authority while disposing of the representation of the petitioner in terms of the order passed by this Court. The Revisional Authority passed a fresh order on 14.05.2018 and disposed of the representation of the petitioner in following terms:-

"4. Now THEREFORE, the representation dated 06.03.2018 of petitioner has been examined in the light of Judgment Order dated 21.07.2016 of Supreme Court of India in Avtar Singh case and Judgment Order dated 29.03.2016 of Rajasthan High Court in Kamal Singh Meena case. Upon examination of the case holistically, it is found that Section 324 indicated in the criminal case is a cognizable offence and is not covered amont the list of minor offences (indicated in Annexure -'B') of MHA policy dated 01.02.012. From the facts it is also observed that he was charge sheeted U/S-324 for voluntarily causing hurt by sword which is a dangerous weapon. Subsequently he was acquitted only after compromise with the party which manifest his involvement in a serious offence.

5. Further, it is revealed that while the petitioner was appointed in CIS