Trivial offenses post-acquittal do not automatically render a candidate unfit for employment, allowing discretion in public employment decisions.

ORDER

1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.9.2024 passed by respondent No.2/Chief Engineer, PHE, Indore whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated on the ground of suppression of fact of criminal case in the verification form at the time of appointment wherein a criminal case bearing crime No.309/2021 for commission of offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506 of IPC is registered.

2. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner was appointed on 21.3.2023 as “Cleaner” in work charge establishment by order dated 10.3.2023 on compassionate ground after the death of his father. As per the condition No.2 of the appointment order, the appointment of the petitioner was subject to the character verification report of police. From the facts and documents of the case floating on the surface, it has come on the record that on 7.9.2021 against the petitioner, a criminal case was registered for commission of offences under section 323, 325, 504, 506 of IPC. On 1.10.2024, the charge-sheet was filed in the Court. The petitioner filed verification form and mentioned that no criminal case is pending against him. Thus, the aforesaid criminal case was suppressed in the verification form and the same was also not mentioned in the affidavit. On the aforesaid ground, the services of the petitioner were terminated.

3. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been acquitted by the Court of law in the said criminal case for commission of offences under section 323, 325, 504, 506 of IPC. It is urged that the petitioner is a class IV employee and was engaged on compassionate appointment on the post of “Cleaner” by the respondents and he was chargesheeted for offences of ‘trivial nature’ and, therefore, as per the clause 6(II)(a) of circular dated 24.7.2018, his compassionate appointment ought to have not been cancelled.

4. The relevant clause 6(II)(a) is reproduced as under :--

"a. ;fn vH;FkhZ ds fo#) iathc) izdj.k lk/kkj.k fdLe dk gS vkSj U;k;ky; }kjk mls nks"keqDr fd;k x;k gSA vH;FkhZ }kjk bldk mYys[k vuqizek.ku QkeZ esa fd;k x;k gks vFkok ugha] mls 'kkldh; lsok ds fy, ;ksX; ekuk tkosxkA

5. The aforesaid clause confers discretion on the employer to consider such candidates as suitable for appointment if the alleged offences are of trivial nature and candidate has been acquitted whether he has disclosed the same or not in the verification form. In support of her submission, she relied on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior passed in the case of Pankaj Singh Tomar vs. The State of M.P and Ors. (W.A No.723/2021) and also the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P and Ors. (Civil Appeal No.5902/2012).

6. Per contra, counsel for the State submitted that admittedly on the date of filing of the application for appointment by the petitioner, a criminal case was pending which was suppressed in the verification form, therefore, he has been rightly terminated from service.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court considers apposite to survey the judgments passed on the issue involved in the present case that whether in case of suppression of pendency of criminal case which is of trivial nature, an employee would be disentitled for claim of compassionate appointment or for the same reason his services are liable to be terminated ?

8. A three-Judges Bench of Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 where broad guidelines we