False declarations regarding criminal cases during employment applications justify termination, regardless of subsequent acquittals.

ORDER

1. Heard.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby, petitioner's original application challenging order of cancellation of appointment has been dismissed.

3. The petitioner was provided employment as Gateman under the Scheme of employment due to premature retirement of his father, who was in employment of the respondent authority.

4. At the time of appointment, the petitioner was made to give certain declarations and file an affidavit particularly with regard to verification of his character and the petitioner gave a solemn declaration regarding there being no criminal case against him. However, after some time, the employer received information that against the petitioner as many as three criminal cases were pending and all these facts were suppressed by him. This eventually led to cancellation of his appointment.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, an original application was filed before the Tribunal. The employer sought to justify the action mainly on the ground that the fact regarding pendency of three criminal cases was suppressed by the petitioner and he also gave false information on affidavit.

6. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner-employee, taking the benefit of subsequent event of he either acquitted or he being acquitted on technical ground or convicted for minor offences, came out with the stand that in these special circumstances, even though, he had suppressed pendency of criminal cases at the time of seeking employment, due to subsequent orders that were passed in various criminal cases, the action of cancellation of appointment be set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service.

7. This, however, did not find favour with the Tribunal and the Tribunal, relying mainly on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 471 and taking into consideration that not one, but as many as three criminal cases were pending on the date, the petitioner sought employment on the basis of false affidavit, upheld the termination order and rejected the application.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner realising that he had a limited scope in the matter, fervently urged this Court to consider the aspect of the matter that though initially suppression was there and the facts regarding pendency of the criminal cases were concealed, subsequently, all the criminal cases have been bought to the end and those cases either have led to acquittal on the basis of compounding of offence or benefits of some other provisions and in one case, not involving the monetary loss and being trivial offence, admission of guilt leading to imposition of fine and not jail sentence. He would submit that even according to the verdict of Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (Supra), there was scope of relief to be given by the employer in view of subsequent events. He would argue that the petitioner was granted employment under the Scheme of employment to one member of the family of a government servant or Railway servant who sought premature retirement. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and Others Versus Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 644 and submitted that, that was also a case of conviction and suppression both, but the Supreme Court finding that it was not a heinous case, but trivial one, relief was granted in the form of reinstatement in service.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the order passed by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference because the Tribunal, while deciding the case, has applied correct principles of law and the order does not suffer from any patent illegality, perversity nor can be said to have caused miscarriage of ju