Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6333
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
VIVEK JAIN, J
SHIVANAND RAM – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 3625 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Awadhesh Kumar Singh
For the Respondents: Sachin Jain
Suppression of criminal antecedents in recruitment disqualifies candidates, regardless of prior acquittals.
Headnote:(A) Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 - Rules 25 and 26 - Services terminated due to suppression of criminal antecedents in an attestation form - The candidate must truthfully disclose information regarding criminal cases even if acquitted; suppression disqualifies the candidate from service. (Paras 1-14)
(B) Employment Law - Character verification during recruitment - Suppressing history of criminal charges, despite acquittal, impacts character assessment essential for public service positions; dismissal during probation is permissible based on false declarations in application forms. (Paras 11-14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the termination of his services as a probationary Constable in CISF due to nondisclosure of prior criminal charges, despite acquittal. He relied on a certificate asserting good conduct from local police.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner willfully suppressed vital information concerning his criminal background, justifying the termination of his services and emphasizing integrity needed in law enforcement roles.
Issues: The main issues addressed include the duty of disclosure of criminal antecedents in recruitment and the implications of suppression of facts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that suppressed criminal antecedents, irrespective of acquittal, disqualify a candidate from employment in sensitive government roles.
Result: The petition is dismissed due to willful suppression.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition against termination based on nondisclosure of criminal history. (Para 1 , 2) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN th ON THE 9 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 3625 of 2018 SHIVANAND RAM Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Appearance:
Shri Awadhesh Kumar Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sachin Jain, Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER By way of present Petition challenge is made to order Annexure P/4 dated 05.10.2013 whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated upon disclosure of the fact that the petitioner suppressed criminal antecedents in attestation form column No.12. The Commandant, CISF terminated the services of the petitioner who was still a probationer in terms of Rule 25 and
26 of CISF Rules 2001.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order Annexure P/4 and the petitioner has not disclosed the criminal antecedents in the attestation form only because the SHO of the concerned police station i.e. Police Station Narhi, District Ballia (UP) had issued a certificate to the petitioner of bearing a good character and no objection to he being appointed in CISF. The said certificate is placed on record as Annexure P/9 and on the strength of the said certificate, it is argued that the petitioner did not make the truthful Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR declaration in the attestation form.
3. Per Contra, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was subjected to Session trial for offences under Sections 308, 452, 323, 427, 506 of IPC and FIR was registered on 10.07.2008 which resulted into acquittal of the petitioner vide judgment dated 04.01.2012 passed by Special Sessions Judge, Ballia (UP) in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2011. The petitioner ought to have truthfully disclosed the said case in which though he has been acquitted but even the acquittal is on the basis of benefit of doubt which is to be found in paragraph 11 of the judgment of acquittal.
4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, it is seen that the petitioner was appointed as Constable-General Duty in Central Industrial Security Force vide Order Annexure P/1 dated 23.01.2013 and he joined as probationer in the said post. He submitted an attestation form at the time of joining which is dated 31.01.2013 and placed on record as Annexure R/2 with the reply to writ petition. Upon a perusal of the said attestation form, it is evident that in column number 12 a number of queries have been printed which have different and distinct paragraph numbers. The queries are in the following terms:-
A. Have you ever been arrested.
B. Have you ever been prosecuted.
C. Have you ever been kept under detention.
D. Have you ever been bound down.
E. Have you ever been fined by court of law.
etc.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR There was a note appended to the said paragraph that if answer to any of the above mentioned questions is 'Yes' then the candidate should give full particulars of the case/ arrest/detention/ fine/ conviction/ sentence/ punishment etc and/or the nature of the case pending in the court etc. at the time of filling up this form. It is further mentioned in note (i) that the candidate should see the warning at top of this attestation form.
5. At the top of attestation form the following warning has been engrafted :-
The furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form would be a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government.
6. The aforesaid warning duly cautioned the candidates that in case of any suppression of factual information in attestation form in itself would be a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment. It was further mentioned in paragraph 3 of warning as under:-
"If the fact that false informatio
