VIJAY SINGH vs M/O DEFENCE on 6 November 2026

ORDER

Per Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J): The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the termination of his temporary service as Multi- Tasking Staff (MTS), Group ‘C’ civilian, under the Central Airmen Selection Board (CASB), Indian Air Force. The principal challenge is to the termination notice/order bearing No. CASB/2407/22/CIVADM BM-I dated 01.05.2023 and the subsequent order bearing the same reference dated 31.05.2023, whereby the applicant’s representation against the termination was rejected. The applicant seeks setting aside of the impugned orders and reinstatement in service with consequential benefits.

2. The case of the applicant is that recruitment to two MTS vacancies was undertaken pursuant to the recruitment process initiated in 2021. He participated in the selection process, qualified the prescribed examination and was placed at serial number one in the standby list. As the selected main candidate did not join within the prescribed period, the applicant was called upon, by communication dated 18.07.2022, to convey his willingness and complete the prescribed medical and character-verification formalities.

3. The applicant states that he completed the requisite formalities, was found medically fit and was issued an appointment letter dated 20.09.2022. He accordingly joined service on 26.09.2022. It is pleaded that he discharged his duties diligently and that no

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSA IN

complaint regarding his work or conduct was communicated to him during the period he remained in service.

4. The applicant submits that, in January 2023, the respondents informed him that a criminal case had been disclosed in a subsequent police-verification report and that he had allegedly furnished incorrect information in the attestation form dated 02.08.2022. The applicant disputes the allegation that he deliberately concealed any material fact and submits that the respondents failed to consider the circumstances surrounding the criminal proceedings and the explanation furnished by him.

5. According to the applicant, the criminal proceedings arose out of a village dispute during the election period in May 2021. He relies upon documents stated to record a settlement before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra, on 01.06.2021, together with affidavits and undertakings of the complainants indicating that they did not wish to pursue the dispute. The applicant’s explanation is that these circumstances led him to believe that the dispute had been resolved.

6. The applicant further relies upon the order dated 10.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Agra, in Case No. 2066/2022 arising out of Crime/FIR No. 186/2021, Police Station Malpura, Agra. By the said order, the applicant and the co-accused were acquitted after the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The applicant submits that the outcome of the criminal proceedings and the circumstances leading to the dispute were relevant factors that

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSA IN

ought to have been considered before an adverse decision affecting his service was taken.

7. The applicant also relies upon the chronology of the police- verification reports. According to the pleadings, the first report, forwarded by the District Magistrate, Agra, under letter No. MVR- 1607/EC dated 08.09.2022, was received by the respondents on 13.09.2022 and did not disclose the criminal case. A subsequent report bearing No. MVR/1706/EC dated 03.01.2023 was received on 24.01.2023 and disclosed the criminal proceedings. The applicant submits that the discrepancy between the reports and the circumstances in which the later report came to be received required objective examination.

8. The applicant contends that the impugned action is arbitrary and disproportionate and violates the principles of fairness and non- arbitrariness embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the respondents failed to give due consideration to the acquittal order, the settlement related documents, the nature of his post and his explanation before terminating his service.

9. The applicant has prayed that this Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for all relevant records pertaining to him, including the Police Verification Reports; set aside the termination order bearing No. CASB/2407/22/CIVADM BM-I dated 01.05.2023; set aside the subsequent order bearing No. CASB/2407/22/CIVADM BM-I dated 31.05.2023; reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits; grant costs of the proceedings; and grant

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSA IN

such other relief as may be considered appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. No interim relief was sought in the Original Application.

10. The respondents have opposed the Original Application. In their counter affidavit, they state that two vacancies of MTS, Group ‘C’ civilian, in the general category were advertised pursuant to the recruitment process initiated by the competent authorities. The examination was held on 30.10.2021, and the applicant was placed first on the standby list. He was offered appointment after the main selected candidate did not join within the stipulated period.

11. The respondents submit that the applicant’s appointment was temporary and subject to verification of character and antecedents. According to them, the applicant completed the attestation form on 02.08.2022 and answered “No” to the question whether any criminal case was pending against him in any court of law. They contend that the answer was incorrect because Crime/FIR No. 186/2021 had already been registered and criminal proceedings were pending.

12. The respondent’s state that the verification pro-forma was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Agra, on 02.08.2022, followed by a reminder dated 02.09.2022. The first report, dated 08.09.2022, was received on 13.09.2022 and indicated that no charges had been registered. The appointment letter was thereafter issued on 20.09.2022, and the applicant joined on 26.09.2022.

13. According to the respondents, a subsequent report dated 03.01.2023, received on 24.01.2023, disclosed Crime/FIR No.

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSA IN

186/2021 involving allegations under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 324, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The respondents submit that the applicant had suppressed material information in the attestation form and that such suppression rendered him unsuitable for government employment.

14. The respondents rely upon the warning contained in the attestation form, which states that furnishing false information or suppressing factual information may disqualify a candidate and render him unfit for government employment. They contend that the applicant was required to disclose the pending criminal proceedings notwithstanding the settlement-related documents relied upon by him.

15. The respondents further submit that the criminal court record indicates that the applicant appeared before the criminal court, was granted bail, denied the charges and sought trial. On this basis, they dispute the applicant’s assertion that he was unaware of the criminal proceedings when he completed the attestation form.

16. The respondents state that, after receipt of the subsequent verification report, the competent authority issued the notice dated 01.05.2023 under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. They maintain that the action was permissible because the applicant was a temporary employee and his appointment was subject to satisfactory verification of character and antecedents.

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSA IN

17. The respondents further submit that the applicant’s representation dated 11/12.05.2023 was duly considered and rejected by order dated 31.05.2023. According to them, the applicant did not produce any new material sufficient to alter the decision, and the acquittal in the criminal case did not automatically entitle him to continuation in government service.

18. The respondents accordingly contend that the termination was lawful, that the applicant has no enforceable right to reinstatement and that the Original Application deserves to be dismissed.

19. In his rejoinder, the applicant reiterates the averments made in the Original Application and disputes the allegation of deliberate suppression. He submits that the power of an employer to verify antecedents, although legitimate, must be exercised in accordance with the applicable service rules and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

20. The applicant relies upon Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, particularly the principles concerning the nature of the information sought in an attestation form, the candidate’s knowledge of the relevant facts, the circumstances of the criminal case and the discretion of the employer in deciding suitability.

21. The applicant also relies upon Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 3574 of 2022, decided on 02.05.2022, and submits that an employer cannot treat every inaccurate answer or omission as an automatic ground for termination without examining

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSA IN

the circumstances and the effect of the alleged suppression upon suitability for the particular post.

22. The applicant further refers to Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 6955 of 2022 and connected matter, decided on 26.09.2022. He submits that the decision concerning criminal antecedents must be based upon objective criteria and due consideration of relevant factors. The applicant does not contend that acquittal by itself compels reinstatement; rather, his case is that the acquittal order and the circumstances of the criminal proceedings were required to be considered fairly.

23. The applicant reiterates that the settlement documents are relevant to explain the background of the dispute and his understanding of the matter. He also submits that the first police- verification report did not disclose the criminal case and that the subsequent report ought not to have been treated as conclusive without examining the underlying records and the circumstances in which the reports differed.

24. The applicant contends that the order dated 31.05.2023 rejecting his representation does not demonstrate an adequate assessment of the relevant facts. He submits that the respondents concentrated upon the applicant’s appearance before the criminal court and the fact of bail but did not adequately examine the nature of the post, the outcome of the criminal proceedings, the explanation furnished by him and the proportionality of the consequence imposed.

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSA IN

25. Having considered the pleadings, the material placed on record and the submissions reflected therein, the questions that arise for consideration are whether the respondents were justified in terminating the applicant’s service in the circumstances of the case; whether the impugned decision reflects the objective assessment required by law; and what relief, if any, should be granted to the applicant.

26. At the outset, it is necessary to clarify that the existence of criminal proceedings and the question of suitability for public employment are related but distinct matters. An acquittal does not invariably erase the historical fact that criminal proceedings were pending when a declaration was made. Equally, the mere existence of a criminal case does not, without a lawful assessment of the relevant circumstances, automatically determine the suitability of a person for every category of public employment.

27. In Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the governing principles concerning suppression of information and disclosure of criminal antecedents. The decision recognizes the importance of truthful disclosure while also requiring the employer to consider the specific information sought, the circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, the outcome of the proceedings and the nature of the post.

28. The principles in Avtar Singh do not permit the employer to act mechanically in every case of alleged suppression. The authority must examine whether the information was specifically required, whether the answer was incorrect, whether knowledge of the relevant

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSA IN

fact can be attributed to the candidate and what consequence is justified in the circumstances. The decision must reflect a rational and objective exercise of discretion under the applicable rules. The Hon’ble Supreme court has observed that:- “Suppression of ‘material’ information presupposes that what is suppressed that ‘matters’ not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions if any in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases.

28. 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 concerned authorities considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects.

29. 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.”

29. In the present case, the attestation form specifically asked whether any case was pending against the applicant in any court of law. The respondents contend that the answer “No” was incorrect because the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 186/2021 were pending at the relevant time. The applicant, on the other hand, relies upon the settlement-related documents and his understanding of the dispute.

30. The settlement documents relied upon by the applicant cannot, by themselves, be treated as having legally terminated the criminal proceedings. A settlement or an undertaking by the complainant does not automatically bring criminal proceedings to an end where a

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSA IN

judicial order or other legally recognized procedure is required. The applicant’s explanation must therefore be considered in the proper legal context.

31. At the same time, the settlement documents cannot be treated as wholly irrelevant. They form part of the background in which the dispute arose and may be relevant to the applicant’s explanation, the circumstances surrounding the case and the overall assessment of his suitability. Their evidentiary value must be considered without treating them as a substitute for a judicial order quashing the FIR or terminating the prosecution.

32. The criminal court’s order dated 10.11.2022 is also a material circumstance. As reflected in the record supplied, the applicant and the co-accused were acquitted after the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The respondents were entitled to consider the fact that proceedings had existed, but the acquittal and the reasons recorded by the criminal court were also relevant to an informed assessment.

33. The acquittal does not, by itself, establish an unconditional right to appointment or reinstatement. Nor does it prevent an employer from considering criminal antecedents for the limited purpose of assessing suitability, subject to the governing law. However, the employer must accurately take account of the outcome of the criminal case and must not proceed as though the applicant stood convicted of the alleged offences.

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSA IN

34. The chronology of the verification reports also calls for consideration. The first report dated 08.09.2022 was received before the applicant’s appointment and did not disclose the criminal case, whereas the subsequent report dated 03.01.2023 disclosed it. The subsequent report was a legitimate reason for the respondents to examine the matter further. However, the difference between the reports and the underlying correspondence were relevant to the overall decision and ought to have been considered as part of the complete record.

35. The respondents rely upon the fact that the applicant appeared before the criminal court, was granted bail and denied the charges. These circumstances may be relevant in determining whether knowledge of the proceedings can be attributed to the applicant. It would not be appropriate to disregard the court record or to hold, without sufficient basis, that the applicant was necessarily unaware of the proceedings.

36. Nevertheless, the question whether the answer in the attestation form was incorrect and the separate question whether termination was a proportionate and legally sustainable consequence are not identical. Even where an answer is found to be inaccurate, the competent authority must exercise its discretion in accordance with the governing rules and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

37. The decision in Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 3574 of 2022, decided on 02.05.2022, reinforces the requirement that the employer’s discretion concerning suppression of material

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSA IN

information must be exercised judiciously. The nature of the post, the nature and circumstances of the criminal case and the effect of the alleged suppression upon suitability are relevant considerations. The judgment does not establish that every acquittal neutralises an earlier omission, but it does not support a wholly mechanical approach either. Hon’ble Apex Court has held as: “The criminal case indeed was of trivial nature and the nature of post and nature of duties to be discharged by the recruit has never been looked into by the competent authority while examining the overall suitability of the incumbent keeping in view Rule 52 of the Rules 1987 to become a member of the force. Taking into consideration the exposition expressed by this Court in Avtar Singh (supra), in our considered view the order of discharge passed by the competent authority dated 24th April, 2015 is not sustainable and in sequel thereto the judgment passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Delhi does not hold good and deserves to be set aside.”

38. In Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 6955 of 2022 and connected matter, decided on 26.09.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasised that an employer has a legitimate role in assessing suitability where criminal antecedents are involved. The decision also cautions that acquittal or a short period of service cannot, by itself, confer an automatic right to employment. The assessment must, however, be undertaken by applying the relevant legal standards and considering the facts of the individual case.

39. The Tribunal is mindful that the applicant held a civilian MTS post and was not recruited to a police or other uniformed law- enforcement service. The nature of the post is not a ground for dispensing with truthful disclosure, nor does it exempt the applicant from the applicable recruitment requirements. It is, however, a relevant factor in assessing the impact of the alleged suppression

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSA IN

upon suitability, in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

40. The applicant’s appointment was temporary, and the respondents have relied upon Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The temporary nature of the appointment is a relevant consideration. However, the existence of a power to terminate temporary service does not make every exercise of that power immune from judicial review. The action must still be examined for compliance with the applicable rules and the requirements of non-arbitrariness.

41. In the present case, the termination notice dated 01.05.2023 was issued after the subsequent verification report disclosed the criminal proceedings. The applicant submitted a representation explaining his position and relying upon the criminal court’s order dated 10.11.2022 and the settlement-related documents. The respondents thereafter passed the order dated 31.05.2023 rejecting the representation.

42. The order rejecting the representation was required to demonstrate that the material placed by the applicant had been considered in accordance with the applicable legal principles. A mere reference to the applicant’s appearance before the criminal court, the grant of bail or the absence of new material facts does not, by itself, establish that the nature of the post, the outcome of the criminal proceedings, the discrepancy between the verification reports and the circumstances relied upon by the applicant were assessed in their proper perspective.

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSA IN

43. The Tribunal does not hold that the applicant’s explanation must necessarily be accepted in its entirety. Nor does it hold that the settlement documents legally terminated the criminal proceedings or that the applicant was wholly unaware of the case. The question is whether the material circumstances were assessed in a fair, objective and proportionate manner before the severe consequence of termination was imposed.

44. In Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644, the Hon’ble Supreme Court adopted a contextual approach to the consequences of nondisclosure of criminal antecedents. The decision does not require every omission to be condoned; rather, it demonstrates that the consequences of an omission must be considered in the factual and legal context of the particular case.

45. The principles of fairness discussed in D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1993) 3 SCC 259, also underline that employment- related action having civil consequences must conform to the applicable legal framework and cannot be arbitrary. The said judgment arose in a different employment setting and does not establish that a full departmental inquiry is invariably required before every termination under Rule 5(1). Its relevance is to the broader requirement that the power affecting employment must be exercised lawfully and fairly.

46. The Tribunal is also conscious that judicial review does not permit it to substitute its own assessment for that of the competent authority on every question of suitability. However, judicial restraint does not require the Tribunal to uphold an order where the decision-

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSA IN

making process fails to demonstrate due consideration of material circumstances or where the consequence imposed is not shown to be proportionate under the applicable legal standards.

47. In the facts of the present case, the applicant had been selected through the prescribed recruitment process and appointed against the vacancy after the main selected candidate did not join. His service was terminated after the subsequent verification report disclosed the criminal proceedings. The criminal case ultimately ended in acquittal, and the applicant placed the acquittal order and settlement related documents before the respondents in support of his representation.

48. These circumstances, taken together, required a careful assessment of the applicant’s explanation, the material in the verification reports, the nature of the post and the actual outcome of the criminal proceedings. The record placed before the Tribunal does not satisfactorily demonstrate that these considerations were evaluated in a sufficiently comprehensive manner before the termination was maintained through the order dated 31.05.2023.

49. The Tribunal is not unmindful of the respondents’ concern regarding the importance of correct disclosure in attestation forms. Public employment requires adherence to the prescribed standards, and candidates cannot be permitted to disregard specific questions concerning criminal antecedents. Nevertheless, the legal consequences of an inaccurate answer must be determined in accordance with the governing rules and binding judicial precedents

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSA IN

rather than by an automatic application of the most severe consequence in every case.

50. It is further pertinent to observe that the applicant had entered service pursuant to a duly conducted selection process and was appointed against an available vacancy after the originally selected candidate failed to join. His appointment was not founded upon any relaxation of the prescribed recruitment criteria. The subsequent disclosure of the criminal case, though undoubtedly a relevant consideration for verification of his antecedents, was required to be examined in the context of the nature of the allegations, the stage and ultimate outcome of the criminal proceedings, and the duties attached to the post of Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS). The respondents have not demonstrated that the alleged incident had any direct bearing upon the applicant's capacity to discharge the duties of the post or that his continuance in the civilian establishment would pose any identifiable concern to institutional discipline or public interest. In the absence of such an assessment, the mere existence of an earlier criminal case, particularly when the proceedings culminated in acquittal, cannot be treated as a conclusive determination of unsuitability. The object of verification of character and antecedents is to ascertain the suitability of a candidate for public employment and not to impose an automatic penalty for every past criminal proceeding irrespective of its outcome and surrounding circumstances. The Tribunal, therefore, considers that restoration of the applicant to service, without granting back wages for the intervening period, would adequately balance the interests of the applicant with the legitimate requirements of the respondents.

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSA IN

51. Having considered the totality of the circumstances, the Tribunal is of the view that the impugned action, as sustained by the order dated 31.05.2023, cannot be allowed to stand. The applicant’s case warrants relief, having regard to the circumstances of the recruitment and appointment, the subsequent acquittal, the material placed in the representation and the requirement that the respondents’ decision conform to the governing principles of fairness and proportionality. This conclusion is confined to the facts and material of the present case and shall not be understood as laying down that an acquittal invariably entitles a candidate to reinstatement.

52. The question of monetary relief must be considered separately. The applicant did not render service during the period following termination, and the record does not justify directing payment of full back wages for that period. The grant of reinstatement does not necessarily entail an automatic award of back wages, and the relief must be tailored to the circumstances of the case. In the interests of justice, reinstatement without back wages would be an appropriate and proportionate relief.

53. The applicant shall accordingly be entitled to reinstatement in the post of MTS or an equivalent post, subject to the applicable service rules. For the period between termination and actual resumption of duty, no back wages shall be payable. The question of notional continuity of service for such benefits as may be admissible under the applicable rules shall be dealt with accordingly, without

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSA IN

treating the intervening period as a period of actual service for the purpose of payment of salary. indicated

54. For the reasons recorded above, the Original Application is allowed to the extent herein. The termination order bearing No. CASB/2407/22/CIVADM BM-I dated 01.05.2023 and the subsequent order bearing the same reference dated 31.05.2023 are set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in the post of MTS or an equivalent post within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

55. The applicant shall not be entitled to back wages for the period between the date of termination and the date of actual resumption of duty. Notional continuity of service shall be considered only for such purposes and to such extent as are permissible under the applicable rules. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(Dr. Sumeet Jerath)

(Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) Member (A)

Member (J)

/lg/

- Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

VERSUS

New Delhi

Itarasi, MP

Lucknow, UP

LALIT GOSA IN