- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1686 WP No. 102329 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 102329 OF 2023 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. LAXMAN GOUDA S/O. KESHA GOUDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: PROJECT HEAD, IISC, BENGALURU, R/O. HOSAMOTE, MAVIN KURVA, HONNAVARA, DIST: KARWAR-581335. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL S.DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DIRECTOR INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (IIT), WALMI, CAMPUS, BELUR INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEAR HIGH COURT BENCH, PB ROAD, DHARWAD. 2. THE REGISTRAR INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (IIT), WALMI, CAMPUS BELUR INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEAR HIGH COURT BENCH, PB ROAD, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVASAI M.PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION/ORDER BEARING NO.ADMIN/FW/LAXMAN GOUDA/2022-23/210 DATED 17-03- 2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-K ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND VIOLATION OF PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE PETITIONER TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.16 12:54:00 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1686 WP No. 102329 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of the communication dated 17.03.2023, issued by respondent No.2 (Annexure-K), whereby, the offer of appointment dated 02.11.2022 to the post of the Assistant Professor, Grade-I, Chemistry at IIT-Dharwad has been withdrawn, after the petitioner had already accepted the offer, joined duty and disclosed all material facts relating to the criminal proceedings pending against him. Brief facts: 2. The petitioner, a highly qualified academician with international research experience, applied pursuant to a recruitment notification issued by the respondent-institute. After due selection process, interview, and approval by the competent authority, an offer of appointment dated 02.11.2022 was issued in his favour. The petitioner - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1686 WP No. 102329 of 2023 accepted the offer, resigned from his earlier employment, joined duty on 15.02.2023 and submitted a prescribed attestation form on 28.02.2023, wherein he truthfully disclosed the pendency of a criminal case and his arrest and custody arising out of a matrimonial dispute with his wife. Despite such disclosure, without issuing a show cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing, the respondent issued the impugned communication (Annexure- K), withdrawing the appointment solely on the ground of pendency of the criminal case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action is arbitrary, disproportionate and violative of the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity of hearing was afforded prior to withdrawal of the appointment. The petitioner has not suppressed any material fact, on the contrary he made a full and truthful disclosure in the attestation form. The criminal case relied upon by the respondent; - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1686 WP No. 102329 of 2023 (i) arises out of a matrimonial dispute initiated by the wife, (ii) does not pertain to moral turpitude, professional misconduct or corruption, financial fraud or offences affecting public trust and (iii) does not have nexus whatsoever with the duties of an Assistant Professor. Mere arrest, custody or pendency of a matrimonial case cannot ipso facto render the petitioner unsuitable, especially when he had already been selected on merit and permitted to join. It is submitted that the respondent has misapplied the statutory scheme and the judicial precedents governing verification of antecedents. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the service matters of IIT are governed by the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 (‘Act 1961’ for short) and the First Statutes of IIT Dharwad 2017, appointments/action must conform to the statutory - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1686 WP No. 102329 of 2023 provision. It is submitted that Section 19 of the First Statutes governs conditions of service, discipline and suspension. Schedule C, clause 16(b) permits placing an employee under suspension where a criminal case is under investigation/trial. Clause 16(b) bars assignment of duties to staff facing criminal investigation. It is submitted that in the attestation, the petitioner disclosed arrest, detention and pendency of a criminal case and, given the serious of allegation and the statutory scheme, the Institute states that joining was not complete until verification and hence the offer was withdrawn on 17.03.2023 after verification. 5. Placing reliance upon the Apex Court’s decision in Avtar Singh Vs Union of India and Others1 (Avtar Singh) submits that the pendency of a criminal case can render a candidate unsuitable and the employer need not wait for the trial outcome where suitability is affected and that the employer's discretion in assessing the suitability lies when serious offences are alleged. 1 (2016) 8 SCC 471 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1686 WP No. 102329 of 2023 6. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have failed to point out any provision under the Act, 1961 or the First Statutes of IIT Dharwad 2017, which authorizes withdrawal of appointments solely on the ground of a criminal case. On the contrary, Section 19 read with “Schedule C”, clause 16(a) and (b) only contemplate suspension or regulation of duties, and not cancellation of appointment, and thus the impugned action travels beyond the statutory framework and is ultra vires. He submits that mere arrest or pendency of a proceedings purely matrimonial in nature, cannot be equated with unsuitability especially when the statutory rules do not prescribe such consequence. He further submits that the petitioner has truthfully disclosed all material particulars in attestation form and once the disclosure is honest, the respondents were required to undertake an objective assessment of suitability as mandated by law. Mechanical withdrawal of appointment defeats the very purpose of antecedent verification. Thus - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1686 WP No. 102329 of 2023 submits that such a plea cannot substitute the statutory compliance. 7. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The point that arise for consideration in this Writ Petition is, “Whether the respondents were justified in withdrawing the petitioner's appointment solely on the basis of pendency of a matrimonial criminal case and is it sustainable in law under the governing statutory rules?” 8. The service conditions of the IIT Dharwad are governed by the Act, 1961 and the First Statues of the Indian Institute of Technology, Dharwad, 2017. Section 19 of the Service of Conditions reads thus: “19. Terms and Conditions of Service of the Employees and Determining their Seniority (1) There shall be the following categories of employees of the Institute – a) Permanent Employees b) Temporary Employees - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1686 WP No. 102329 of 2023 c) Employees on Contract The terms and conditions of service for each of the above categories shall be as provided in the Schedule B. (2) For determining the inter-se seniority of employees of different categories for specific purposes such as for the membership of authorities and bodies, residential accommodation etc, the Board may approve the norms and guidelines from time to time. (3) The employees shall be governed by the Conduct Rules as detailed in the Schedule C.” 9. Schedule C, clause 16 discipline and conduct reads thus: “16 Disciplinary action: Suspension: The Director may place a member of the staff appointed at the Institute under suspension: (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him contemplated or is pending; or - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1686 WP No. 102329 of 2023 (b) where a case in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial” 10. A conjoint reading of Act, 1961 and Section 19 read with Schedule C, clause 16(a) and (b) of the First Statues of the Indian Institute of Technology Dharwad, 2017 makes it manifest clear that the statutory scheme does not confer any power on the respondents to withdraw or cancel an appointment solely on the ground of a pendency of a criminal case. Under the governing rules, pendency of a criminal proceedings is recognized only (i) as a circumstance warranting administrative regulation, namely placing the employee under suspension (ii) withholding assignment of duties during the investigation or trial. The Statue does not contemplate withdrawal of appointment, cancellation of selection or termination of service as an automatic or a consequential measure on mere pendency of a criminal proceedings. When the statute expressly provides for a lesser and temporary measures, the respondents could not have - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1686 WP No. 102329 of 2023 resorted to a most drastic action which is neither contemplated nor sanctioned by the Rules. 11. Further, what is important to be noted is the criminal case relied upon by the respondents arises out of a matrimonial dispute initiated by the wife and does not relate to any offence involving moral turpitude or professional misconduct, financial impropriety or violation of any statutory obligation attached to the post of Assistant Professor. Such proceedings, by their very nature, do not constitute a statutory disqualification under the applicable rules or which was within the wisdom of the administration. In the absence of any express rule enabling withdrawal of appointment, the impugned action is ultra vires the statutory framework and cannot be sustained merely on the basis of administrative discretion or legal opinion. Accordingly, this Court holds that the respondent lacked rule based authority to withdraw the petitioners’ appointment and the impugned communication dated 17.03.2023 is therefore illegal and unsustainable in law. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1686 WP No. 102329 of 2023 12. The Apex Court in Avtar Singh’s case has laid down the guidelines and at paragraph Nos.38 has held as under: “38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise 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. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1686 WP No. 102329 of 2023 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 recourses 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. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1686 WP No. 102329 of 2023 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 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1686 WP No. 102329 of 2023 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 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.” 13. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench in the case of Neeraj Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan and others2 (Neeraj Kanwar), at paragraph No.31, placing reliance upon the decision of the Avatar Singh, stated supra has held at paragraph No.31 as under: 2 2025:RJ-JD:13298 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1686 WP No. 102329 of 2023 “31. Ever otherwise, one ought to be mindful that the youth need a reformative approach to the indiscretions committed in heat of the moment, which may or may not be intentional. Societal and so should the legal perspective be, of course depending upon the nature of delinquency, that youthful indiscretions should not permanently tarnish an individual's future. A compassionate and reformative approach ought to be adopted when dealing with young individuals who may have committed minor transgressions. Young people are still in the process of emotional and intellectual development. They often act impulsively, sometimes making decisions that are not well thought out. A punitive approach that permanently brands young individuals as criminals for relatively minor mistakes contradicts the principles of justice/fairness, recidivism and reformation and reintegration into society.” 14. The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, at Jammu, in the case of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Arsam Imtyaz Malik3 (Arsam) has held at paragraph No.19, 20 and 21 as under: 3 W.P.(C)No.289/2025 CM.No.578/2025 dated 17.02.2025. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1686 WP No. 102329 of 2023 “19. The Apex Court in a case titled “Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India” reported as (2023) 12 SCC 317 held that mere suppression of material information or furnishing of false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate employee, while following the law laid down in its earlier judgment in a case titled “Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India” reported as (2016) 8 SCC 471 wherein while summarizing the conclusion, a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court had laid down broad guidelines which have to be taken note of by the appointing/competent authority in dealing with the matters where there is suppression of material information or disclosure of false information and after reconciling the earlier judgments succinctly summarized the conclusions as under: 34. No doubt about it that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess suitability and it is open to employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects. 35. Suppression of „material‟ information presupposes that what is suppressed that „matters‟ not every technical or trivial matter. The employer - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1686 WP No. 102329 of 2023 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. 36. 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. 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. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1686 WP No. 102329 of 2023 20. Since the respondent, who had been appointed as an MTS (Class IV), the question is whether his service can be terminated on the ground of a pendency of a criminal case. Unless a person is held guilty by conviction in a trial held by a court, the presumption of his innocence has to be construed as a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence. Merely involvement in a criminal case when the trial is still underway is not a mirror to reflect the character and antecedents of a person. The Apex Court in a case titled as “State of Gujarat & Anr Vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah” reported as 1999(1) SCC 529 has made following observations regarding involvement in a criminal case on the basis of an FIR: “The involvement of a person in criminal case does not mean that he is „guilty‟. He is still to be tried in court of law and the truth has to be found out ultimately by the court where the prosecution is ultimately conducted.” 21. Needless to mention that if a deserving person is denied appointment then even if later on he is acquitted by the trial court, there is very little scope for him to get the Government employment. The pendency of a criminal case cannot be construed as an impediment in appointment and performance of duties by such person.” - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1686 WP No. 102329 of 2023 15. The High Court of Delhi in the case of Vikas Nagar Vs. Union of India and others4 (Vikas Nagar) has held at paragraph Nos.3 and 4 as under: “3. In the present case, as has been noted in our Order dated 03.10.2024, the criminal case has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife. The proceedings in the said criminal case have been stayed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad vide its Order dated 23.02.2024 referred hereinabove. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer a punishment when the criminal case is yet to be adjudicated. We do not need to emphasise that in the matters of public employment, the opportunity does not come repeatedly and may never come for the petitioner again. The petitioner has been successful in obtaining the employment with the CISF based on his own merit and qualification. In case, the petitioner is not allowed to join, subject to the pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner may lose this opportunity for all times to come and this loss would never be compensated. On the other hand, in case he is eventually found guilty, the balance can be struck by making his appointment subject to the outcome of the criminal case and, in that event, 4 2024 SCC Online Del 8162 - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1686 WP No. 102329 of 2023 directing that he would be terminated from service without any notice or following the rigours of an inquiry. 4. We, therefore, dispose of this petition by setting aside the impugned letter dated 03.09.2024, issued by respondent no.2. The petitioner shall be allowed to join the post of Constable DCPO in the CISF subject to the outcome of the criminal case, that is, Case No.6431/2023 arising out of the FIR No.322/2023 dated 30.08.2023, registered at Police Station Nakhasa, District Sambhal (Uttar Pradesh) under Sections 376 / 377 / 354 / 364 / 511 / 323 / 504 / 506 / 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and pending before the Competent Court at Sambhal. In case the petitioner is eventually convicted in that case, the respondents shall be free to terminate the services of the petitioner, without the petitioner having any equity in his favour due to this Order or his service rendered in the interim. We further clarify that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any service benefits for the service that is rendered by him, in case of his conviction, except for the pay that he has earned for that period.” 16. The Delhi High Court said that the proceedings in the said criminal case has been stayed by the appellate - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1686 WP No. 102329 of 2023 court and gives a rider clause saying that eventually if it is convicted in that case, the respondent shall be at liberty to terminate the services of the petitioner without the petitioner having any equity in his favour due to this order or the service rendered in the interim. 17. From the decisions stated supra, the law is well settled that pendency of a criminal case by itself cannot be a disqualification of her appointment to government service. Moreover, when the law holds that until the person is been convicted in any criminal case continues to enjoy the presumption of innocence. The Candidate cannot be denied public employment merely on the basis of pendency of a criminal case without conviction. 18. In this case, inter-se matrimonial dispute is there between the parties and not a case of moral turpitude, dishonesty or any other relating to his employment or service conditions. Having regard to the same, for the - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1686 WP No. 102329 of 2023 foregoing reasons, the point frame for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned communication dated 17.03.2023 passed by respondent No.2 withdrawing the petitioner's appointment dated 02.11.2022 to the post of Assistant Professor, Grade-I, Chemistry is hereby quashed. iii. The withdrawal of appointment cannot be constituted as valid, as the pendency of a criminal case arising out of the matrimonial dispute in the absence of any statutory qualification under the Institute of Technology Act, 1961 and Section 19 read with Section C, clause 16(a) and (b) of the first statute of IIT Dharwad 2017 cannot be constituted a valid ground for withdrawal of the appointment. iv. It is clarified that the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner being of a - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1686 WP No. 102329 of 2023 personal and a matrimonial nature shall not be a ground to be treated as a disqualification or for discontinuous in service nor shall they prejudice to petitioner's service career. v. The petitioner by way of an interim order of this Court dated 13.04.2023 has been appointed. The respondent is directed to continue the services of the petitioner as the Assistant Professor Grade-I and he would be entitled for all the benefits arising therefrom. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AT/EM Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28