Non-disclosure of a criminal case in an employment verification form does not axiomatically mandate disqualification; the employer must exercise discretion based on the nature of the offense, the nature of the post, and the presence of deliberate intent to suppress material facts.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

Aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 02.03.2016 whereby it was intimated that his selection for the post of LDC informed vide Memorandum, dated 20.09.2010, stands cancelled, the applicant has filed the OA for quashing of the said order and consequently prayed for a direction to the respondent to issue appointment order on the basis of the selection already made with all other consequential benefits including seniority, arrears of wages etc., and to pass such other or further orders in the interest of justice and thus render justice.

2. The facts that give rise to the filing of the OA are as follows: The applicant, a Degree holder belonging to the Scheduled Caste category of Puducherry, is a physically challenged person with a hearing impairment of up to 40%. He is therefore entitled to the benefit of reservation under both the SC and PH categories. Pursuant to a Notification issued in 2010 by JIPMER for filling up 40 vacancies for the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC), the applicant applied and appeared for the written test held on 05.09.2010, followed by a computer skill test. The applicant submits that a Memorandum, dated 20.09.2010 was issued informing him of his selection for the post of LDC and directing him to submit attestation forms. After submitting all the required documents, the applicant awaited the appointment order. However, while other selected candidates received their appointment orders, the applicant did not. He therefore submitted a representation dated 08.07.2011 requesting issuance of the same. In response, he was informed that upon verification, it was found that he was involved in a criminal case bearing FIR No. 377 of 2000 under Sections 147, 148, 341, etc., of the IPC at Valavanur Police Station, Tamil Nadu, and that the trial was pending before the court. Accordingly, his appointment was made subject to the outcome of the said case. Subsequently, the applicant approached the Hon’ble High Court of Madras by filing Criminal O.P. No. 25537 of 2011 seeking quashing of Crime No. 377 of 2000. The Hon’ble High Court directed that the case be disposed of on a priority basis. Pursuant to this direction, the trial court heard the matter and, by judgment dated 31.03.2015, acquitted all the accused persons, including the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant submitted a representation, dated 06.08.2015 requesting that he be issued an appointment order in view of his acquittal. However, on 02.03.2016, an impugned order was issued stating that his selection to the post of LDC stood cancelled on the ground that he had furnished false information in the attestation form despite a warning. The applicant then submitted a representation dated 25.08.2016 stating that he was not aware of the criminal case at the time of submitting the attestation form and requested cancellation of the impugned order. In response, he received a letter dated 12.09.2016 stating that the impugned order dated 02.03.2016 stood unchanged. Hence, the present Original Application.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant primarily contends that the impugned order cancelling the applicant’s selection to the post of Lower Division Clerk is arbitrary, discriminatory, and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the respondents had initially deferred the issuance of the appointment order on the ground of the pendency of a criminal case in Crime No. 377 of 2000, and had expressly informed the applicant that his