Page No.# 1/15 GAHC040001332025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/39/2025 Kadum Jamoh Son of Shri Naloko Jamoh, Rani Village, PO and PS Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 3 Ors represented by the Secretary (Home Affair), Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Director General of Police (PHQ) Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Deputy Inspector General of Police (PHQ) Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4:The Assistant Inspector General of Police Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Advocate for the Petitioner : Tabit Tapak, T Taki,T Tabing,Aso Dalbong Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Page No.# 2/15 Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 25.05.2026 Heard Mr. T. Taki, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. Y. Riram, learned Junior Government Advocate, appearing for the State respondents. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.07.2024, vide No.PHQ/PER-128/2016 (PART-I), issued by the Assistant Inspector General of Police (E), Police Headquarter, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh and also prayed for reinstating the petitioner in service, to the post of Constable (Civil Police) in terms of the appointment order, dated 22.04.2024, vide No.PHQ/PER-21/2024. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 23.07.2024, the petitioner was dismissed from service. 3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present writ petition, are briefly stated as under:- “Pursuant an advertisement dated 03.05.2023, vide No.APSSB-13/6/2023, issued by the Secretary cum CoE (APSSB), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, the petitioner had applied for the post of Constable. The petitioner was selected and appointed to the post of Constable, vide common appointment order, dated 22.04.2024. Thereafter, he served as Constable under Arunachal Pradesh Police, for 5 months and undergone departmental training at Banderdewa, and he received salary for 5 months. But, during the course of service training, an objection has been raised by the respondent department to the effect that he has concealed his criminal antecedents in terms of the application form, filled up by him. Whereas, at the time of filling up of the form, he was not properly aware of the language contained in the form, as he was never been convicted in Page No.# 3/15 any Court of law. However, a technical objection has been raised by the respondent department, and he has been terminated from the service illegally and arbitrarily without any departmental enquiry/proceedings in violation of the principle of natural justice. The specific allegation against the petitioner was that in Clause 11(a) of the application form, it has been asked, have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bind down/fined, convicted by a Court of law for any offence, or debarred/disqualified by any public service examination from appearing at its examination/selection or debarred from taking any examination restricted by any university or any other education authority/institution, as contained in the language of the form, which was a complex question and therefore, he has mistakenly filled as ‘No’ and even if there was a mistake, it was corrigible as he was never been convicted in any Court of law and despite the fact that the respondent authority mechanically and technically raised the issue and in violation of the principle of natural justice by issuing the impugned termination order, dated 23.07.2024 mechanically and arbitrarily. It is, however, the case of the petitioner that a case was registered against him, being S/Oyan P.S. Case No.26/2019, under Section 419/506/34 IPC, corresponding G.R. Case No.321/2019, and investigation of the said case culminated in submission of charge-sheet. But, the petitioner has been discharged from the case on 06.06.2024, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat and police has also given a report over the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, in which no criminal records have been found against him in terms of the certificate, dated 26.07.2024 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pasighat. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition seeking the relief as aforesaid.” 4. The respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition, wherein Page No.# 4/15 a stand has been taken that while appointing the petitioner, vide appointment letter dated 16.02.2024, under Memo No.PHQ/PER-213/2024, the petitioner was directed to report at Police Training Centre on 05.03.2024 subject to the condition at Sl.No.2 of the offer of appointment that “A Comprehensive Character and Antecedent verification of the candidate to the fullest satisfaction of the department, if any adverse remarks received about the Character and antecedents, the service will be terminated forthwith”. The said condition was also mentioned in the appointment order dated 22.04.2024. Thereafter, the Character and antecedent report has been received by the office, which clearly reveals that the petitioner is involved in one criminal case, being S/Oyan P.S. Case No.26/2019, under Section 384/506/34 IPC and charge-sheet has been submitted in the said case, and the case is currently on trial and the same has been reported in the letter by the Officer-in-Charge, Sille-Oyan Police Station, Pasighat. 4.1. It is also stated that in the character and antecedent form at Clause Nos. 11 (a) and 11(b), it is clearly mentioned as under:- (i) 11(a):- Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a Court of law for any offences or debarred/disqualified by any public service commission from appearing at its examinations /selections or debarred from taking any examination restricted by any University or any other Education authority/Institution? (ii) 11(b):- Is any case pending against you in any Court of law, University or any other Education authority; Institution at the time of filling up this attestation form? (If the answer to (a) & (b) is ‘Yes’ full particulars of the case, arrest, detention, fine, conviction sentence etc. and the nature of the case pending in the Court/University/ Educational authority etc. at the time of filling of this Attestation form, should be given. If bailed out date and type of bail be mentioned.) Page No.# 5/15 4.2. It is further stated that in the instant case, the petitioner has concealed the abovementioned fact and filled the point at Clause Nos.11(a) and 11(b) as ‘No’ and as such, the impugned termination order has been issued. 4.3. It is also stated that the department has issued termination order on 23.07.2024, based on the report received from the Officer-in-Charge, Sille-Oyan Police Station, Pasighat and the petitioner has filled his character and antecedent form on 18.02.2024, and as such, he has concealed the fact in the attestation form by responding ‘No’ against Clause 11(a) signed on 18.02.2024, whereas, the judgment of learned C.J.M., Pasighat is of dated 06.06.2024, and it is apparent that when the petitioner has filled up the form on 18.02.2024, the case was pending against him. And as such there is no merit in this petition and that the petitioner was rightly terminated from service and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 5. The petitioner has filed his reply, denying the statement and averment made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents and he has enclosed the acquittal order as Annexure-I in his reply affidavit and he has also filed one additional affidavit, by placing on record the charge-sheet in connection with G.R. Case No.321/2019. 6. Mr. Taki, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order, so passed by the respondent authorities, is illegal and arbitrary for being issued without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. He also submits that the question at Clause 11(a) of the application form, is of a complex nature, and the petitioner could not understood the same properly, and therefore, he answered the same as ‘No’ and that there is no suppression of fact and he further submits that the petitioner was acquitted by the learned C.J.M., Pasighat, vide order dated 06.06.2024, and despite the termination order was issued on 23.07.2024, and as such, the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and therefore, it is contended to set it aside. 7. In support of his submission, he has referred to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Page No.# 6/15 Court in the case of (i) Sandeep Kumar v. GB Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology Ghurdauri & Ors. [Civil Appeal No(s)./2024, arising out of SLP(C) No(s). 8788-8789/2023] (ii) Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India & Anr. [Civil Appeal No(s).3574 of 2022 [Arrising out of SLP(C) No(s). 8788-8789/2023] (iii) Shri Dejo Karga v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. [WP(C) No.25(AP)/2025] and in the case of Shri Gumluk Karbak v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. [WP(C) No.612(AP)/2024], and also a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of to bolster his submission. 8. Per contra, Mr. Riram, learned Junior Government Advocate, appearing for the State respondents, has supported the impugned order dated 23.07.2024. He submits that the petitioner has suppressed the material fact, while answering the questions at Clause Nos.11(a) and 11(b) as ‘No’ and that he has filled up the form on 18.02.2024 and he was acquitted by the learned C.J.M., Pasighat on 06.06.2024 and as such, on 18.02.2024 the case was pending against the petitioner before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat. He also submits that in the character and antecedent verification report, the Officer-in-Charge of Sille-Oyan Police Station has indicated the pendency of the case against the present petitioner and since the petitioner has suppressed the material facts, while filling up the clauses of the form at Sl.Nos.11(a) and 11(b), the impugned order suffers from no infirmity or illegality requiring any interference of this Court. He also submits that the case was originally registered under Section 384/506/34 IPC, which relates to extortion, threat and intimidation. He further submits that though, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat vide order dated 24.05.2024, has dropped the charge under Section 384 and only offence under Section 419 and 506 IPC is found to be established and that the Page No.# 7/15 petitioner is appointed as Constable in the Police Department and he was involved in the case of extortion and under such circumstances, the impugned order, so passed by the respondent authorities, suffers from no infirmity requiring any interference of this Court. 8.1. In support of his submission, he has also referred to following decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of his submission:- (i) Daya Shankar Yadav vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2010) 14 SCC 103. (ii) Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363. (iii) Avatar Singh vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471. (iv) Rajasthans Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Another vs. Anil Kanwariya, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 136. 9. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also gone through the decisions referred by the learned counsel for both the parties. 10. The basic facts here in this case are not in dispute. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 03.05.2023 issued by the Secretary cum CoE (APSSB), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, the petitioner had applied for the post of Constable. He appeared in the written test and he got selection on merit and he was appointed vide order dated 22.04.2024. Thereafter, he had undergone 5 months’ departmental training at Banderdewa Police Training College and while he was undergoing training, he was served with the termination order dated 23.07.2024. The ground for termination was that he has violated the condition, as contained at Sl.No.4 of the appointment order and also in Clauses 11(a) and 11(b) of the form filled up by him for being appointed as Constable. 11. It is a fact that before passing the termination order no show-cause notice was Page No.# 8/15 issued to the petitioner and no opportunity of being heard was also granted to him. But, it is not in dispute that at that time he was under the probation. Further, at Sl.No.4 of the common appointment order, it is stated that a comprehensive Character and Antecedent verification of the candidate to the fullest satisfaction of the department, and if any adverse remarks received about the character and antecedents, the service will be terminated forthwith. 12. It also appears that before the service of the petitioner being terminated on 23.07.2024, the Sille-Oyan P.S. Case No.26/2019, registered against the petitioner, has been charge-sheeted and it was pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat and the charge-sheet was filed under Section 384/506/34 IPC. However, the learned C.J.M., vide order dated 24.05.2024, has held that only offence under Section 419 and 506 IPC is attracted and thereby dropped the offence under Section 384 IPC vide order dated 06.06.2024, as the informant on that day do not want to pursue the case further and thereafter, the learned C.J.M. had acquitted him. 13. However, the issue before this Court is not the nature and gravity of the charge and also not of the acquittal or conviction. It is the suppression of fact in the application form. It is also not in dispute that in the offer of appointment, dated 16.02.2024, being Annexure-II of the petition, at Sl.No.4 it is stated that the petitioner will be on probation for period of two years. And further from the Annexure-III of the petition i.e. the common appointment order dated 22.04.2024, specially in condition No.4 indicates that a comprehensive Character and Antecedent verification of the candidate to the fullest satisfaction of the department, if any adverse remarks received about the character and antecedents, the service will be terminated forthwith and further, from the Annexure-III of the affidavit-in-opposition, in Clauses 11(a) and 11(b) of the attestation form, it is stated that (a) have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a Court of law for any offences or debarred/disqualified by any public service commission from Page No.# 9/15 appearing at its examinations/selections or debarred from taking any examination restricted by any University or any other Education authority/Institution? And (b) Is any case pending against you in any Court of law, University or any other Education authority; Institution at the time of filling up this attestation form? (If the answer to (a) & (b) is ‘Yes’ full particulars of the case, arrest, detention, fine, conviction sentence etc. and the nature of the case pending in the Court/University/Educational authority etc. at the time of filling of this Attestation form, should be given. If bailed out date and type of bail be mentioned.) 14. And in the said form, the petitioner herein has answered both the points as ‘No’. However, from the verification report of the Officer-in-Charge, Special Branch, Pasighat, which is enclosed with the petition at page No.92 indicates that no any adverse or criminal records found against the petitioner as per Special Branch records. But, the report furnished by the Officer-in-Charge, Sille-Oyan Police Station, Pasighat indicates that as per available P.S. record, it is found that the petitioner has previous criminal record with respect to S/Oyan P.S. Case No.26/2019, under Section 384/506/34 IPC and the same has been charge-sheeted and pending before the Court for trial. Thus, Annexure-III of the petition and the report of the Officer-in-Charge, Sille-Oyan Police Station, which is placed at page No.93 of the petition, indicates that despite pendency of the Sille-Oyan P.S. Case No.26/2019, under Section 384/506/34 IPC, the petitioner while filling up the form on 18.02.2024, has failed to mention the same in respect of Clauses 11(a) and 11(b). 15. Thus, there appears to be suppression of material facts by the petitioner in the attestation form and in view of the condition No.4 in the common appointment order dated 22.04.2024, Annexure III of the petition, which stipulates that a comprehensive character and antecedent verification of the candidate to the fullest satisfaction of the department. If any adverse remarks received about the character and antecedents, the service will be terminated forthwith. And accordingly, in view of the said clause, Page No.# 10/15 the respondent authorities herein have terminated the petitioner from service during his probation period. 16. Now, the issue to be addressed by this court is :- what would the consequence of giving such false information in the application form. According to Mr. Riram, learned Junior Government Advocate, the impugned order suffers from no infirmity or illegality as in view of the condition No.4 of the appointment letter, the service of the petitioner was terminated on receipt of adverse remark. There appears to be substance in his submission and the decisions referred by him in Devendra Kumar (supra), Avtar Singh (supra) and Parmod Kumar (supra), also fortified his submission. 17. It is to be noted here that a three judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh(supra), while dealing with the issue in question and also taking note of various decisions summarize the conclusion as under:- 38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. 38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. 38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. 38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted: 38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a Page No.# 11/15 petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse. 38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. 38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. 38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. 38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case. 38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper. 38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime. 38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form. 38.10. For determining suppression or false information Page No.# 12/15 attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for. 38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him. 18. Subsequently, in the case of Anil Kanwariya,(supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court, taking note of the ratio laid down in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), and also in other cases held as under:- “9. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, the impugned order [Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. v. Anil Kanwariya, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 7819] passed by the Division Bench dismissing the appeal and confirming the order [Anil Kanwariya v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 5082] passed by the learned Single Judge quashing and setting aside the order of termination terminating the services of the employee on the ground of non- disclosure/suppression of material fact and filing a false declaration and directing the appellants to reinstate the respondent employee is unsustainable.” 19. In the case of Devendra Kumar (supra), the fact of the case was that - while joining the training, the employee was asked to submit an affidavit giving certain information, particularly, whether he had ever been involved in any criminal case. The employee submitted an affidavit stating that he had never been involved in any criminal case. The employee completed his training satisfactorily and it was at this Page No.# 13/15 time that the employer in pursuance of the process of character verification came to know that the employee was in fact involved in a criminal case. It was found that the final report in that case had been submitted by the prosecution and accepted by the Judicial Magistrate concerned. On the basis of the same, the employee was discharged abruptly on the ground that since he was a temporary government servant, he could be removed from service without holding an enquiry. The said order was challenged by the employee by filing a writ petition before a Single Judge of the High Court which was dismissed. The Division Bench upheld that order, which was the subject-matter of appeal before Hon’ble Supreme Court. 19.1. Dismissing the appeal, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed and held that the question is not whether the employee is suitable for the post. The pendency of a criminal case/proceeding is different from suppressing the information of such pendency. The case pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude but suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral turpitude. It is further observed that the information sought by the employer if not disclosed as required, would definitely amount to suppression of material information and in that eventuality, the service becomes liable to be terminated, even if there had been no further trial or the person concerned stood acquitted/discharged. 20. In the case of Daya Shankar Yadav (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “23. The fact that a criminal case was registered against the appellant is not disputed. The fact that no criminal case was pending against him, when he gave the verification declaration in the year 2004, or the fact that he was not convicted or fined or bound down in any case, loses relevance, when he clearly suppressed the material fact that he was prosecuted and thereby made a false statement. Though the English version of the questions could have used a little more clarity, we cannot agree with the contention that he was misled into answering the question wrongly, as the Hindi Page No.# 14/15 version of the questions which were answered by the appellant did not suffer from any vagueness or ambiguity. 24. We are satisfied that the appellant had knowingly made a false statement that he was not prosecuted in any criminal case. Therefore, the employer (CRPF) was justified in dispensing with his services for not being truthful in giving material information regarding his antecedents which were relevant for employment in a uniformed service, and that itself justified his discharge from service. Consequently, we dismiss this appeal as having no merit.” 21. The proposition of law, as laid down in the cases discussed here in above, and application of the same to the given factual matrix of the case would indicates that the impugned order of termination dated 23.07.2024, terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground of non-disclosure/suppression of material fact and filing a false declaration is entitled to an appointment as a matter of right. The question, however, is not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently acquitted or not. The question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of the employment i.e. while submitting the declaration/verification and/or applying for a post made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressing material fact of having involved in a criminal case. 22. This Court has carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also carefully gone through the decisions referred by Mr. Taki, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.25(AP)/2025 and in WP(C) No.612(AP)/2024, and find that the facts of the present case is clearly distinguishable from the fact of the said cases. In the said cases the petitioners were juvenile at the time of commission of the offence. 22.1. The facts in other two decisions referred by him in Sandeep Kumar (supra) and Pawan Kumar (supra) also, appears to be distinguishable from the case in hand. Page No.# 15/15 In the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra), the petitioner was a Registrar of an University and his service was terminated without holding a disciplinary proceeding despite his service deemed to have been regularized. Under such circumstances Supreme Court has interfered with the order of termination. And in the case of Pawan Kumar (supra), the petitioner was holding the post of Constable in Railway Protection Force and the criminal matter against him was of trivial nature, not involving moral turpitude 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. 22.2. In the case of Devendra Kumar (supra) it has been held that the case pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude but suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral turpitude. In that view of the matter the decision referred by Mr. Taki, learned counsel for the petitioner, in Sandeep Kumar (supra) and Pawan Kumar (supra), which are pronounced much later than the case of Devendra Kumar (supra) would not come into his assistance. Further, the decision in Avtar Singh (supra), is a decision of three judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court. 23. In the result, this Court find no merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant