Sudhi Isac v. Union of India

15. The learned Counsel sought to highlight the predicament of the petitioner, wherein he came to be appointed as a Driver on compassionate grounds and is unfortunately being proceeded against on account of an isolated incident in an otherwise unblemished service record with no other criminal antecedents. He contended that multiple factors were to be taken in consideration including the financial and medical condition of the family of the petitioner, the fact that he was provisionally appointed as a driver in GREF and, that he had unconsciously answered “NO” to the question of disclosure qua the pending case against him. To buttress his argument, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh v Union of India[6] and Ravindra Kumar v State of UP[7].

16. Per Contra, Ms. Uma Prasuna Bachu, learned SPC for the respondent would submit that as per Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, action against the petitioner was necessary due to false information, related to the pendency of the criminal case, provided by the petitioner in the „Attestation Form‟, at the time of his appointment. It was contended by the learned Counsel that the petitioner filled the attestation form and consciously did not disclose about the ongoing trial which amounts to material suppression. She further contended that at the time of filling the Attestation Form, he was verbally briefed by the Recruiting Authority, GREF, Pune to not conceal any information and yet he failed to make the requisite disclosure which attracts penalty under Rule 11 of CCS(CCA) Rules.

17. Learned SPC submits that an employer cannot be compelled to appoint a candidate who acted in bad faith by intentionally failing to disclose involvement in criminal proceedings. Reliance was placed on paragraph 38.[5] of Avtar Singh v Union of India and Ors(supra) by the Counsel to submit that neither the trial was concluded nor was it, truthfully disclosed and hence it goes way beyond the threshold laid down in Avtar Singh(supra)and the notice of termination, thus, is justified.

18. As regard to the medical and financial status of the petitioner, the learned counsel has contended that family pension arising due to the demise of petitioner‟s father, is payable to the petitioner‟s mother during her lifetime and being the widow of a deceased government servant, she is also entitled to avail medical facilities under the Medical Attendance Rules in hospitals recognized for specialized cancer treatment. It is thus contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief on this ground, as his mother is not dependent upon him.

19. Learned Counsel further contended that candidates for police forces such as the GREF, must possess impeccable character and integrity, and that a person with criminal antecedents, even if acquitted or discharged, may not meet the requisite standard of rectitude. Reliance was placed on Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla v State of Jammu & Kashmir[8], to substantiate the aforesaid claim.

20. Ms. Bachu submitted that, Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, provides that the services of a temporary government servant may be terminated at any time by rendering notice in writing issued either by the government or the appointing authority. She further argued that despite the warning provided in the Attestation Form, there was no disclosure and further, that the petitioner did not dispute furnishing false information in Para12(i) of the Attestation Form. It is further submitted that such false or incorrect entry constitutes misconduct, and termination from service would be justified.

21. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after carefully perusal of the materials on record, this Court is of the SLP (C) No. 678/2021 opinion that undoubtedly, while choosing an individual for appointment to public service, the character and conduct of an individual is of paramount significance and the same cannot be compromised in any circumstances. Ordinarily, a person seeking public employment is duty bound to give a truthful disclosure of his or her antecedents, however in the present case, the said responsibility gains significance in the wake that the Attestation Form included a warning that if any legitimate information was suppressed and discovered at any point during an individual's service, their service would be terminated or disqualified, as the case maybe and the candidate would be declared ineligible. However, in the same breath it is also true that this Court and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, on several occasions, have come to the rescue of the aspirants and have delineated certain circumstances, wherein the disqualification of aspirants to uniformed services, despite suppressing material facts, were not found to be in consonance with the reigning service jurisprudence, depending upon the nature of post, nature of duties/service, effect of suppression over suitability etc.

22. The Apex Court, while dealing with material suppression of facts, in Ravindra Kumar (supra), has categorically laid down that:

34. On the facts of the case and in the backdrop of the special circumstances set out hereinabove, where does the non-disclosure of the unfortunate criminal case, (which too ended in acquittal), stand in the scheme of things? In our opinion on the peculiar facts of the case, we do not think it can be deemed fatal for the appellant. Broad-brushing every non-disclosure as a disqualification, will be unjust and the same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the ground realities obtaining in this great, vast and diverse country. Each case will depend on the facts and circumstances that prevail thereon, and the court will have to take a holistic view, based on objective criteria, with the available precedents serving as a guide. It can never be a one size fits all scenario”

23. Thus, it is settled law that every case involving suppression or non-disclosure must be assessed holistically and mere non-disclosure of a past criminal antecedent or proceeding cannot automatically lead to disqualification. Authorities cannot cancel selection mechanically for mere non-disclosure; they must assess suitability in accordance with the law.

24. Furthermore, the decision in Avtar Singh v Union of India(supra), lays down the guidelines qua non-disclosure of material facts. The Supreme Court held that a candidate's suitability should not be questioned based solely on their failure to disclose irrelevant or trivial information. Such errors may be excused, and the employer has the authority to do so by using uniform and objective standards. The relevant extract is reproduced below:

37. The “McCarthyism” is antithesis to constitutional goal, chance of reformation has to be afforded to young offenders in suitable cases, interplay of reformative theory cannot be ruled out in toto nor can be generally applied but is one of the factors to be taken into consideration while exercising the power for cancelling candidature or discharging an employee from service.”

25. Adverting to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the petitioner applied for appointment on grounds of death of his father in harness in the year 2016, when the petitioner was eighteen years old and there was no case pending against him. Apparently, he was informed through his mother in 2017 that his candidature was under consideration as he was placed at serial number 396 out of 731 candidates, who were awaiting compassionate appointment. It was in the year 2018, when the petitioner was about 20 years, that he along with five others, who were all similarly aged, were charged with allegation of forming an unlawful assembly, criminal intimidation and assaultunder Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 324 and 506(i) read with Section 149 of the IPC. The petitioner was requested to re-apply in the year 2022, wherein he was told to fill multiple columns in the attestation form, leading to his suppression of the pendency of the criminal case against him.

26. No doubt, the multiple columns in the attestation form, questions were asked from him in different permutations and combinations. He must have been in a deep dilemma as there was an imminent prospect of losing his employment. It is quite possible that either he might have been careless in striking off the correct option or would have been so impressed upon his acquittal by his Counsel that he made a wrong disclosure. The proximate timing in filling of his attestation form on 14.02.2022 and his acquittal on 24.03.2022 prompts us to record the said observation. Further, we find that the petitioner was appointed and subsequently, on 22.06.2022, the GREF Records, Dighi Camp, Pune-15, requested verification of Character and Antecedents pertaining to the petitioner from the Office of the District Police Chief, Alappuzha. This Court finds that the District Police Chief sent a report in tabular form and after noting that the details of the criminal case and the subsequent acquittal of the petitioner on 24.03.2022, has stated that the petitioner was suitable for appointment.

27. Although, this Court does not intend to give any concession to the petitioner for supressing the material facts of his involvement in the criminal case, however the fact remains that this Court is reminded of a very significant paragraph in the Ravindra Kumar’s case(supra), which relates to the doctrine of proportionality. The Apex Court says that; „what yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects.‟ Thus, a threshold for assessing material suppression in respect of a post such as a driver in the GREF, should be in accordance with law quoted above and cannot be equated with the principles attributable to higher ranking offices in public departments or services.

28. This Court finds that every case needs to be analysed holistically and by considering surrounding circumstances in each case. In the present circumstances, the post in question is that of a Driver, therefore, character evaluation in the present must be linked to the responsibilities of this position, which do not require much public interaction or considerable discretion or authority. Further, the petitioner‟s appointment was offered under the compassionate appointment scheme, which itself reflects the family‟s economic vulnerability. Since it is difficult to evaluate character in vacuum or separate it from these social circumstances, a realistic and more pragmatic approach has to be adopted.

29. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner is not involved in any case, which can be termed to be involving in moral turpitude or offence of heinous or serious nature. The offense in question is not a serious one. All the accused, including the petitioner are in the age group of 20-30 years. The prosecution failed to produce any witnesses during the trial, resulting in the acquittal of the petitioner, which in a way, also makes the happening of the alleged event doubtful. Further, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that subsequent police verification from District Police Chief, Alappuzha, recommended the petitioner as a suitable candidate and nothing against him has been mentioned in the said Report. Even from the perspective of proportionality, the allegations against the petitioner were neither serious nor proven at trial. Further, considering the purpose of compassionate appointment, the very objective of these recruitments is to alleviate immediate financial hardships faced after passing of the provider. Presently, the petitioner and his family's dependence coupled with his mother's continued medical treatment cannot be ignored.

30. Hence, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, while keeping in view the contemporaneous records, we are persuaded to exercise our discretionary relief in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice.

31. For the aforesaid reasons and following the law laid down in Ravindra Kumar v State of U.P. (supra) and Avtar Singh v Union of India (supra), we set aside and quash the impugned termination order dated 22.03.2023 with consequential reliefs(s) as may be permissible to him as per law. The petition is allowed with no order as to costs.

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J C.HARI SHANKAR, J SEPTEMBER 10, 2025