Mr. Bijo Mathew Joy, Adv v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Judgment

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the notice of termination order dated 22.03.2023 along with a consequential relief of permitting him to continue his service in GREF, under the Ministry of Defence.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the present case would reveal that on

16.02.2022, the petitioner was provisionally appointed to the post of DVRMT(O) Driver Mechanical Transport (Ordinary Grade) in General Reserve Engineer Force1 of the Border Roads Organization2 under the Border Roads Development Board, Ministry of Defence on Signature Not Verified 1 “GREF” hereinafter 2 “BRO” hereinafter Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:15.09.2025 18:31:40 W.P.(C) 4382/2023 compassionate grounds, owing to the death of his father, while on duty as a driver in Jammu & Kashmir on 29.09.2015.

3. Apparently, the petitioner has been seeking appointment in the GREF since the year 2016 on compassionate grounds, and it was only on 18.08.2017, that the mother of the petitioner received an intimation

affirming his selection, wherein he was placed at serial number 396 out of 731 candidates awaiting compassionate appointment.

4. In the interregnum, Crime No. 1023/2018 came to be registered at Thrikunnapuzha Police Station against the petitioner and five other persons for alleged offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 324 and 506(i) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603, wherein it was alleged that six accused persons, including the present petitioner, formed an unlawful assembly with the common object to commit assault and criminal intimidation.

5. While things stood as aforesaid, the petitioner was requested by the GREF Centre, Pune to apply afresh against the 118 vacancies released for the year 2018, vide a letter dated 02.08.2019. Consequently, the petitioner applied appointment on compassionate grounds along with the requisite documents. Following the Preliminary Medical Examination4, on 24.01.2022, the petitioner was declared medically fit, an offer of recruitment was issued to the petitioner on 29.01.2022 against the vacancies for the year 2019, calling upon him to report at the GREF Centre in Pune, and to submit Signature Not Verified 3 “IPC” hereinafter 4 “PME” hereinafter Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:15.09.2025 18:31:40 W.P.(C) 4382/2023 an attestation form along with certain documents on or before

28.02.2022.

6. On 14.02.2022, while filling out the abovementioned attestation form, the petitioner marked “No” against Para 12(i) regarding pendency of a criminal case while answering the remaining sub- queries in the negative as well.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner was provisionally appointed as a driver in the GREF w.e.f. 16.02.2022 on compassionate grounds. Meanwhile, the trial for the aforesaid Crime No. 1023/2018 commenced on 03.03.2022 and culminated into the judgement dated

24.03.2022, whereby all the accused persons including the petitioner were acquitted.

8. Subsequently, on 22.06.2022, the GREF Records, Dighi Camp, Pune-15, requested verification of Character and Antecedents pertaining to the petitioner from the Office of the District Police Chief, Alappuzha. In view of the response received from the District Police Chief, the Respondent No.5 issued a letter dated 27.09.2022, seeking explanation regarding the aforesaid Crime No. 1023/2018, in the following words: “2 On checking of verification duly signed by Dist. Police Chief, Alappuzha letter it is found that the individual was involved in CR. 1023/2018 of Thrikkunnappuzha PS, and he was acquitted by Hon. JFMC I Haripad on 24.03.2022. 3 However, in this instant case you have not disclosed in the attestation form at the time of enrollment and suppressed the facts. Signature Not Verified 4 In view of the above, you are hereby advised to submit the detailed explanation for the above lapse to this unit immediately.” Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:15.09.2025 18:31:40 W.P.(C) 4382/2023

9. The petitioner, in response, stated that he was falsely implicated in the criminal case by some known persons due to personal vengeance. He further stated that he attested the form upon consulting his Counsel who assured him that there was no pending case against him, and he was at liberty, and now he has been acquitted in the said criminal case. Further, he stated that any non-disclosure of this case in his enrollment application was unintentional and made in good faith. The petitioner also highlighted that he was the sole breadwinner, he had two unmarried sisters, and that his mother, who was undergoing chemotherapy for Stage IV cancer, depended on him for their livelihood and medical treatment.

10. However, on 17.03.2023, a Show Cause Notice under Rule 11 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 19655 was issued, whereby reply of the petitioner was sought as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him on the above allegations. Pursuant to the said Show Cause Notice, the petitioner sent a detailed reply dated 22.03.2023, stating that at the time of initial submission of the application for compassionate appointment during 2016, no such proceedings were pending and every year thereafter,the application was repeatedly sent without any changes, ignoring the registration of crime. He stated in his reply that “NO” as answered against Para No. 12(i) in the attestation form was unconsciously written as all other questions were answered in the negative and explaining that the criminal case pending against him was frivolous, vexatious and insufficient to engage his conscience. He further Signature Not Verified 5 “CCS(CCA) Rules” hereinafter Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:15.09.2025 18:31:40 W.P.(C) 4382/2023 reiterated that there was no willful suppression and that his mother, who suffered from cancer, as well as with his two unmarried sisters, are dependent on him for medical treatment and livelihood.

11. Notwithstanding this reply, Respondent No. 4 issued the impugned Notice under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, whereby the petitioner herein was terminated, which has been sought to be interdicted in this writ petition, along with prayer for consequential relief of reinstatement.

12. Mr. Bijo Mathew Joy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the Respondent No. 5 issued a Show-Cause Notice under Government of India‟s Decision No. 2 under Rule 11, which relates to “departmental action for neglect of family by a government servant”. It was argued that the said provision has no application to the petitioner since no such allegation was raised against him by the respondents.

13. It was submitted that the Respondent No. 4 imposed a penalty of termination under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 which is barred under Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, as the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules do not constitute a 'penalty' within the meaning of the said Rule 11 CCS(CCA) Rules. According to the learned Counsel, there exists no decision of Government of India under the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 providing for action against a government servant on the ground of furnishing false Signature Not Verified information at the time of appointment. Therefore, any termination Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:15.09.2025 18:31:40 W.P.(C) 4382/2023 under Rule 5(1) of the said Rules is not legally sustainable, particularly when the non-disclosure of the pending criminal case was unintentional.

14. Mr. Joy, the learned Counsel has strenuously argued that the verification report from the District Police Chief, Alappuzha, noted the petitioner‟s connection with Crime No. 1023/2018 and his subsequent acquittal by the Hon‟ble Judicial Magistrate First Class-I, Haripad on 24.03.2022. Notwithstanding the criminal case, the report of the District Police Chief, explicitly stated that the petitioner was „suitable for appointment.‟ He further contended that, in view of this, there was no obstacle to the petitioner‟s appointment and that any non-disclosure in the attestation form was unintentional and made in good faith. The learned Counsel urged that the case against the petitioner was false and frivolous in nature and therefore no criminal antecedents can be attributed to the petitioner.

15. The learned Counsel sought to highlight the predicament of the petitioner, wherein he came to be appointed as a Driver on compassionate grounds and is unfortunately being proceeded against on account of an isolated incident in an otherwise unblemished service record with no other criminal antecedents. He contended that multiple factors were to be taken in consideration including the financial and medical condition of the family of the petitioner, the fact that he was provisionally appointed as a driver in GREF and, that he had unconsciously answered “NO” to the question of disclosure qua the pending case against him. To buttress his argument, the learned Signature Not Verified counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:15.09.2025 18:31:40 W.P.(C) 4382/2023 Avtar Singh v Union of India6 and Ravindra Kumar v State of UP7.

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

17. Learned SPC submits that an employer cannot be compelled to appoint a candidate who acted in bad faith by intentionally failing to disclose involvement in criminal proceedings. Reliance was placed on paragraph 38.5 of Avtar Singh v Union of India and Ors(supra) by the Counsel to submit that neither the trial was concluded nor was it, truthfully disclosed and hence it goes way beyond the threshold laid down in Avtar Singh(supra)and the notice of termination, thus, is justified.

18. As regard to the medical and financial status of the petitioner, the learned counsel has contended that family pension arising due to