1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7578 of 2011 Reserved on 18.11.2025 Delivered on 25.11.2025 1. Dharmendra Kumar S/o Shri Bhagirath Prasad, aged about 31 years, Occupation – Trade Constable (Sweeper) (Terminated), R/o Village Mahadevpura, Post Aithar, Distt. Bhind (M.P.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Home and Police Affairs, Department of Home, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur (CG) 2. The Director General of Police, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. The Inspector General of Police, Chhattisgarh Arms Force, Police Head Quarter, Raipur (CG) 4. The Commandant, A.P.T.S. Jagdalpur (Trainy) District – Jagdalpur (Chhattisgarh) 5. The Commandant, 16th Battalion (I/R), Chhattisgarh Arms Force, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur (CG) 6. Commandant, 7th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Arms Force, Bhilai, District Durg (CG) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. H. A. P. S. Bhatia, P.L. BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.11.25 17:15:59 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal C A V O R D E R 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief: “That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus for setting aside the order impugned dated 08.11.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.3 and quashed the order dated 15.11.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by the respondent No.4, by which petitioner has been terminated from the post of Trade Constable (sweeper).” 2. The facts relevant for disposal of the present case, in brief, are that consequent upon petitioner's participation in a duly drawn selection process he was selected as Trade Constable (sweeper) in the Chhattisgarh Armed Force on 19.11.2009 and joined his service at 7th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Bhilai, District Durg. At the time of appointment, petitioner filled a verification form, column 12 whereof required the candidate to submit information as to whether he was chargesheeted in any criminal case or had been arrested or a bond had been obtained etc. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner mentioned “No” in Column No.12 and did not disclose the fact that Crime No.01 of 2004, for offences under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC was registered against him with other family members at Police Station Barohi in District Bhind and in the said matter he was convicted 3 under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one month u/s 323/34 of IPC and RI for one year with fine of Rs.100 with default stipulation u/s 325/34 of IPC by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind, MP vide order dated 15.10.2007. 4. In the course of verification of antecedent, the respondent No.6 got the said information from the office of the Superintendent of Police/District Magistrate, District Bhind, M.P. Subsequently, the impugned order terminating the service of petitioner was passed by the Appointing Authority on 15.11.2010. Against the termination order, the petitioner filed a petition, WPS No.1011 of 2011, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.02.2011 with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to appellate forum available to him under the provisions of law. Consequently, the petitioner filed a Departmental Appeal under Section 24 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 before the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh which was rejected vide order dated 08.11.2011, resulting in the filing of the present writ petition. 5. Assailing the impugned orders, Shri Avinash K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that against the said conviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Bhind registered as Criminal Appeal No.126/2007 along with other family members. During the pendency of appeal, the 4 victim Kalicharan and all the accused filed an application for compromise under the provisions of 320 (5) & 320(2) of CrPC which was allowed by the Sessions Judge, Bhind on 17.06.2008 (Annexure P-10) resulting all the accused including the petitioner acquitted from the charges under Sections 325/34 & 323/34 of IPC. However, for causing injuries to victim Ram Singh, the case was decided separately in Criminal Appeal No.126/2007 on 24.09.2008 whereby the conviction of the petitioner and other accused persons under section 323/34 was maintained but the sentence of one month RI was set aside and only a fine of Rs.1,000/- was imposed. Therefore, the criminal case having already ended pursuant to the compromise, the petitioner did not thought it necessary to disclose the information. It is further argued that the offence was registered pursuant to a dispute between neighbours and relatives because of domestic reasons and the petitioner did not involve in any heinous/serious nature crime, therefore, such non discloser would not affect the petitioner's candidature. It is further argued that although the petitioner has been discharged/terminated from services but true reason for such discharge is non discloser of information and not on the basis of poor performance. It is lastly argued that order impugned has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner. 6. Per contra, Shri H. A. P. S. Bhatia, learned State Counsel, would submit that the offences alleged against the petitioner also 5 include Section 325 of the IPC, which is treated as involving moral turpitude, therefore, the petitioner was discharged from the services. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection 8. Now the question arising for decision making in the case is - Whether after the Supreme Court's judgment in the matter of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471 and State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar (2018) 15 Scale 154, petitioner's discharge/termination from the service vide order Annexure P-1 is required to be sent back to the Government for an objective decision ? 9. In Avtar Singh (supra), the Supreme Court was deciding a reference for resolving conflict of opinion in various decisions of the Division Benches of the Supreme Court as noticed in Jainendra Singh vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home & Ors. (2012) 12 SCC 748. The reference was made due to cleavage of opinion on the question of suppression of information or submitting false information in the verification form as to the question of having been criminally prosecuted, arrested or as to pendency of criminal case. The referring Bench in Jainendra Singh (supra), while making the reference observed that in case an appointment order has been secured fraudulently, the appointment is voidable at the option of the 6 employer and the employee cannot get any equity in his favour and no estoppel has created against the employer only by the fact that the employee has continued in services for a number of years. 10. The Supreme Court then summarized the conclusion in Para 38 thus:- “38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus: 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 7 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 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. 8 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 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 9 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. 39. We answer the reference accordingly. Let the matters be placed before an appropriate Bench for consideration on merits.” 11. Avtar Singh (supra) has been followed by the Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in the matter of Abhijit Singh Pawar (supra). 12. It is thus settled by the Supreme Court that assessment of suitability on the basis of verification of character and antecedent should be based on objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects and further that though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has 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. Having further observed that 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 10 candidature or discharging an employee from service, the Supreme Court summarized the conclusion in Para 38. It is clearly held in para - 38.4.1. that in a case of trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, for a 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. Dealing specifically with specific case of suppression of acquittal in a criminal case, it is also held in paragraph 38.4.3. that if acquittal has 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. 13. It is thus apparent that even in case where the candidate has been acquitted from the offences involving moral turpitude or heinous/serious crime it is obligatory for the employer to consider all relevant facts available as to antecedent. The fact that the case appears to be involving dispute between the parties over opening of the door by a guest who had come to the house of the complainant Ram Singh on 13th day (post-funeral) ceremony, the whole genesis of the incident which led to the registration of crime has to be considered objectively as to whether it would affect the petitioner's suitability for rendering services on the post of Trade Constable (Sweeper). 11 14. In view what is discussed above, this Court deems it appropriate that the State Government should reconsider the issue keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (Supra). 15. Accordingly, Annexure P-1 dated 08.11.2011 is set aside. Let the respondents No.2 & 3 revisit the issue in an objective manner, keeping in view the principles laid down in Avtar Singh (supra), within a period of three months from today. It is made clear, even if, the order is recalled the petitioner shall not be entitled to back wages, however, he shall be entitled to notional seniority. 16. In view of the above observations, petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai