Pending criminal charges do not automatically disqualify an individual from government service; fair hearing and natural justice must be observed before termination.

JUDGMENT

M.A. CHOWDHARY, J.

1. The petitioners, through the medium of this petition moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seek quashment of the judgment/order dated 20.06.2024 ("impugned order‟) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench ("the Tribunal‟) in Original Application ("OA‟) No. 61/82/2024 titled “Arsam Imtyaz Malik Vs. UT of J&K & Ors” whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed OA and set aside the order impugned therein dated 03.01.2024 whereby the petitioner No. 2 had withdrawn the appointment order issued in favour of the respondent under SRO 43, pursuant to his appointment order dated 05.12.2023 and joining order dated 06.12.2023 in PWD (R&B) Division Bhaderwah. The petitioners, however, have been authorized to proceed further on conclusion of the trial against the respondent.

2. The petitioners have pleaded in their petition that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment/order had not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter that it is a settled proposition of law, buttressed by catena of judgments that a person is bound to disclose his antecedents to the appointing authority; that the respondent had not disclosed the fact regarding his involvement in criminal activities for which an FIR was already registered at Police Station Bhaderwah, at the time of submission of his joining report; that the learned Tribunal had wrongly relied upon the J&K Civil Services (Verification of Character and Antecedents) Instructions, 1997 and wrongly came to the conclusion that only conviction can bar a person from joining the Government services, whereas, the fact is that Rule 17(d) of the Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1956 provides for subjective satisfaction of the appointing authority to weigh the past antecedents of the candidate with the service and whether the candidate can uphold the dignity of the post; that the respondent right from inception of his joining had not disclosed his past, with regard to pending trial in NDPS case and mere fact that the respondent is not convicted does not fulfill the subjective satisfaction of the appointing authority.

3. The facts, as summarized before the learned Tribunal, are that the respondent came to be appointed under SRO 43 on account of death of his father, by the petitioners herein by virtue of Order No. CEJ/ADM/232 of 2023 dated 22.11.2023, in compliance to the approval conveyed by the Administrative Department; that pursuant to his appointment, the respondent came to be posted in PWD(R&B), Division Bhaderwah for further duties and the respondent joined at his place of posting on 06.12.2023; that the respondent swore an affidavit that he has not been convicted of any offence by any court of law and that he is facing trial in one case; that on 23.12.2023, the respondent No. 4-Executiver Engineer, PWD(R&B), Division Bhaderwah vide his communication stated that the respondent had been allowed to join in the Division after proper verification of the documents and on receipt of character/antecedent certificate from CID vide Form No. 55821 dated 17.05.2023; that the respondent had revealed that he was under trial in one case and said case has not been disposed of till date as such, instructions were sought for the withdrawal of the salary of the respondent by the petitioner No. 4-Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Division, Bhaderwah from the petitioner No. 3-Chief Engineer, PWD(R&B) Chenab Zone, Batote.

4. The petitioner No. 2-Chief Engineer, PWD (R&B), Jammu vide his No. CEJ/ADM/01 of 2024 dated 03.01.2024, however, issued an Order withdrawing the appointment of the respondent with immediate effect vide communication No. 1123-27 dated