IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of full disclosure of criminal cases in the Attestation Form and the employer's discretion in considering antecedents for employment.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Punit Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ - A No. 68541 of 2015 and respondent no.2 in connected Writ-A No.41433 of 2015 as well as Shri A.K.Gaur, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Union of India in both writ petitions.

2. Writ - A No. 68541 of 2015 has been filed with the following prayer:-

"I. Issue a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.05.2015 passed by the respondent no.4 (Anneuxre No.1 to this writ petition) to the extent denying full wages, allowances and other service benefit to the petitioner, from the date when Junior to the petitioner in merit/selection list as given appointment by the respondent No.1 to 3.

II. Issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent No.1 to 3 to treat the petitioner in service and pay salary and other allowances etc. admissible to the post from date Junior in the merit/select list was given appointment in service, till the date petitioner is taken on duty by the respondents."

3. Writ-A No.41433 of 2015 has been filed with the following prayer:

"(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records and quashing the order dated 27.05.2015 (Annexure No.1 of the writ petition) passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, respondent No.1.”

4. The facts in both writ petitions are similar, therefore, they are being decided finally with a common judgment.

5. Facts in brief are that pursuant to the advertisement issued by Railway Recruitment Board, petitioner/respondent no.2-Ravendra Singh applied for the post of Junior Engineer-II (Tele). He appeared in the written test and declared successful, subsequently, he was called for interview and after being selected, his name was sent to General Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur vide Railway Recruitment Board, Ajmer letter dated 31.08.2011. Thereafter, he joined in the respondent organization on 02.11.2011. Subsequently, the respondent no.3 issued a show cause notice to Ravendra Singh on 12.03.2012 for concealment of fact in replying Item No.11(b) in the Attestation Form. Thereafter, he submitted his reply on 23.03.2011, Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Considering the said reply the respondents have passed an order on 10/25.05.2012, cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. Assailing the said order, petitioner- Ravendra Singh filed Original Application No.1592 of 2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, with a consequential prayer to treat the petitioner in service from the date when junior in merit in the select list was given appointment and pay the salary and other consequential benefits including seniority etc.

6. In the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondents before the Tribunal, the facts of the case have not been disputed. It has been submitted that the panel dated 31.08.2011 supplied by R.R.B. has expired on 31.08.2012 in terms of Railway Board Letter dated 15.03.2012 and it will not be feasible to give appointment to those candidates who have furnished false information and suppressed any factual information And the said warning is also contained in Railway Board’s Letter dated 20.10.2013 at Item No.1 in the Attestation Form. It was further stated that the applicant has furnished false information in his Attestation Form and deliberately concealed the fact regarding his prosecution in a criminal matter. It was further contended that earlier the petitioner was prosecuted in a criminal case registered under Section 323/504/325 IPC.

7. The submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner/respondent no.2-Ravendra Singh is that due to ignorance and mistake, Ravendra Singh has not given true answer to the question relating to prosecution. It is submitted that in the year 2001, an N.C.R. under Section 323, 504 IPC was registered against him and subsequently a chargesheet under Section 323, 324 and 504