He enclosed a revised attestation form and a copy of the acquittal order' v. The police verification report received by the

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JI'SIICE SRI APARESH KUIVIAR SINGH AIID THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHruDDIN WRIT PETITION No.37610 OF 2o.25 DATE: ll .12.2025 Between: Karankote Abhishek. AND .Petitioner The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship, New Delhi and2 others ...Respondents ORDER , Heard Sri T.Sanjay Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of tndia appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

2. This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated O1.O4.2A25 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, (for short, 'Tribunal) in O.A.No.359 of 2018, whereby the Tribunal 2 dismissed the petitioner's chailenge to the cance[ation of his provisional appointment to the post of Trai.i,g officer (principal of Teaching) in the Directorate General of Training, N{inistry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurshi o. 3' The factual background, as c,lled from the pleadings and annexed documents, is as uncler: i' The petitioner is an Engineering Graduate in Electronics and communication Engineering (2oog) and has prior work experience as an Instructor and Junior consurtant in various training institutes. ii. In response to Advertisemen.t No.1o/2016 issued by the Union public service commission (Upsc) for eight posts - of Training officer, the petitioner applied, appeared for interview and was placed at Sl.No.3 after the All Inciia Test and at Sl.No.1 in the merit list after the interview. Petitioner was intimated of his provisional selection uide letter dated ro.o4.2or7, subject to verification of character and antecedents, medical fitness and other formalities. iii. The petitioner lilled and submitted an Attestation Form on 20.o3.2orr. In column 12 of the Form, which specificalry a J requires the candidate to disclose whether he has ever been prosecuted, arrested, convicted, etc., the petitioner answered in the negative. iv. on l2.lo.2oI7, the petitioner submitted a correction letter to the UPSC stating that he had inadvertently omitted to mention a Criminal Case (Crime No.28 of 2OO9 under Sections 419, 42O Indian Penal code) in which he was implicated and later acquitted by the Lok Adalat, Hyderabad on 05.05.2012. He enclosed a revised attestation form and a copy of the acquittal order' v. The police verification report received by the respondents, confirmed that a case of impersonation/cheating was registered against the petitioner, which was compromised before the Lok Adalat, and that the petitioner had suppressed this fact in column 12 of the original . attestation form. vi. After obtaining legal opinion from the Legal Adviser (L&E), which opined that the suppression amounted to a gross violation of Central Civil Services Rules ( for short 'CCS RulesJ and that the offer of appointment could not be issued to the petitioner, the respondents cancelled the petrt[gner's canclidature uide letter dated 13'03'2018' 4 vii. The petitioner challenged the said cancellation before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and relying on the Judgments in state of Rajasth,,n q.nd. others u' chetan Jeff and cha nd.rajeet Kurnar Gond. u- High court of Judicatttre at Allahabo,d. & another2 dismissed the o.A. hording that the petitioner had suppressed material information deliberately and ,w,as not entitled to rerief. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this court by firing the present writ petition. Submissions of the petitioner

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that: i' The suppression rvas not deliberate or mara fid.e. The ' petitioner voluntarily disclosed the fact of the criminal case and his acquittal in the same by his letter dated l2.lo.2ol7, i.e-, before any adverse order was passed. ii. The criminal case ended in acquittal as earry as 05.05.2012. A person acquitted is entitled to be treated as innocent and the past incident shoulo not be held against him. t 1zozz119 scc 366 ' zozq scc online All 251 5 Ill The offences alleged (impersonation/cheating) by the petitioner was not of a heinous or serious nature and the case was compromised in Lok Adalat. Hence, it was a trivial matter. 1V The petitioner's conduct during his earlier contractual employment with his employers \ fas satisfactory, as evidenced by experience certificates. The action of the respondents is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and contrary to the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in: cr, Vasudeaan Nair u. Director of Vikram ".S. Saro;bhai Space Centre3 b) Commissioner of Police and others u. Sandeep Kumana c) Autar Singh a. tlnion of India and otherss d) Bhauesh Pqtll u, State of Madhya Pradesh6 e) Commisstoner of Police, New Delht & another a. Dhaaql Singh7 fl Mohommed Imrqn v. State of Maharashtra and otherss 5 ' t988 Supp SCC 795 olzor t; 4scc644 1zo ro; 8 scc 47 l u 20t2 SCC Online MP 9288 '1reee; t scc246 *1zore; r7scc696 6 vi. The Tribunal erred in applying the 11* laid dor.vn in cheto,n Jeff (supra 1) and chand.rajeet Kumar Gond. (supra 2), which are distinguishable on facts. vii. The respondents ought to have exercised their discretion to condone the rapse, considering the petitioner,s merit, subsequent voruntary disclosure and the ress serious nature of the offences alleged. t

5. sri N.Bhujanga Rao, rearned Deputy solicitor General of India for the respondents contended that: i. The attestation form submitted by the petitioner is a solemn document intended to assess the character and antecedents of a candidate for public employment. The " warning at the top of the form explicitly states that furnishing false information or suppression of factual information would entail disqualification of the candidate. ii- The initial suppression of the criminal case against the qetitioner, drl Engineering Graduate in the attestation ^ttdrm was deliberate and material. The offences under Sections 419 and 42o rpc (impersonation and cheating) involve moral turpitude and are serious in the context of a Training officer's role, which demands integrity and trust. 7 iii. The so-called toluntary disclosure' came only after the police verification process had commenced and the adverse report was imminent. The subsequent disclosure of the Criminal Case against him by the petitioner was an afterthought and does not cure the initial suppression. iv. The legal opinion obtained by the respondents correctly concluded that the suppression violated the CCS Rules and warranted cancellation of candidature. v. The Tribunal rightly applied the principles in Chetq.n Jeffs case (supra 1) and Chandraieet Kumar Gond's case (supra 21, which emphasize that a candidate must come with ciean hands and that suppression of material facts, especially in uniformed or disciplined services, disentitle him to relief. vi. The precedents cited by the petitioner are distinguishable on facts and do not assist his case. vii. The decision to cancel the candidature was taken after thorough appreciation of the facts and the circumstances, considering the nature of the post, the materiality of the suppressed information and the applicable rules. The decision does not suffer from any arbitrariness or illegality. \-F \a 8

6. we have taken note of the respective contentions urged and considered the material on record. Leqal Analvsis:

7. The core issue in the present casp is whether the cancellation of the petitioner's candidature on the ground of suppression of material information in the attestation form is Iegally sustainable? I. The s disclosure attestation form and the dutv of It is pertinent to note that the attestation form is not a mere procedural formalit5r. It is a vital instrument through which the employer assesses the character, afltecedents and suitability of a candidate for public employment. The warning printed prominently on the attestation form (Annexure p-T) leaves no room for ambiguity, furnishing false information or suppression of factual information would disqualify the candidate. The undertaking given by the candidate at the end of the form reinforces this obligation. The relevant portion of the warning at the top of the attestation form and the undertaking just above the signature are extracted hereunder: 9 grHiwffinyBsTATIoN FIRM ffi1y1npyliyc srsiffn vd I AaT Wn lqr qt ffi aq ol fuqnr sfi{dr flqfr qwft aetr de# olw dCtddtt ol v@rfr qW h fuq oplrq sqt qr] fr The furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in tle Attestation Fonn would be a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for emplogment under the Gouernment. 2. {?r wlf fil w+ afu tM t dtT qE Jd{dr{ ol qqteq, fr{q/dr{ fuqr qtar d s-s w go4qT qdnqt qmr d, vd gqfqr d@s-d, ffid, d)qTffi rrfr fuqr wdT e dl Jsdfi Wlr d@td sq ,ilru\q ol atztar sv atfffi ol +?l@tfr ,W qr+ arBt, dl6 €dt M qad sraqioq vlt' idr qqr il tsr t atl w qd sw qfirtr fu dt@fr67ail fuqdd dr If detained, arrested, prosecuted, bond dou.tn, fined, conuicted, debarred, acquitted etc. subsequent to the completion and. submlsslon of this form ttrc details should be communicated immediatelg to the Union Public Serutce Commfssion or the authoritg to whom the attestation form has been sent earlier, as the case maA be, failing uthich it will be deemed to be a suppression of factual information s. qE fulfr qfu b edmd I qa qdr qddt I fu sraq.iaq vd q- qdf Wvr fr C e qr fufrdeq nlfuqurqqr A dl vsd W aqrq o7 qr sbrfrt If the fact tltat false infonnation has been furnished or that there has been suppression o/ any factual infonnation in the attestation form comes to notice at ang time during the seruice of a person, his seruices utould be liable to be terminated. I nvlp,u qw 6tA dfu ow A rd Vq'ar qdt d6 gi qar d aqr ftsrs d sA aEt Wf ?r n M ffi Rttu n qftfrd qA F tusl ww I stwr b r{fri lW b fuq qTrq t dt Wt I certifu that the foregoing information i.s correct and. complete to the best of mg knoutledge and belief. I am not aware of any ciranmstances uthich might impair mg fitness pr emplogment under Gouernment. l0 In the present case, the petitioner under Column 12 of the form is specifically required to disclose whether he had ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention, convicted, etc. The petitioner, an cclucated professional, answered 'No'. It is only about seven months later, after the police verification process was underway, the petitioner sought to correct the answer. The explanation that he forgot about the case is untenable. The Criminal Case (involving allegations of impersonation and cheating) registered on Ol.O2.2O|O and compromised on 05.05.2012 (pending for more than two years) was not a trivial or forgettable incident. The petitioner's conduct evinces a conscious decision to withhold the inflormation at the time of fitting the form, hoping it would not surface. II. Materialitv of the suppressed information The offences alleged i.e., impersonation and cheating under Sections 419 and 42O IPC unquestionably involve moral turpitude. The post of Training Officer, especially in a Government training set-up, demands a high degree of integrity, trustworthiness and moral rectitude. A person, who withholds information about his involvement in a case of deception, is I inher[ndy unsuitable for such a role. The suppression itself l1 demonstrates a lack of candour and integrit5r, which are essential attributes for a public servant. It is to be noted that the subsequent acquittal of the petitioner by the Lok Adalat does not obliterate the fact of involvement or the duty to disclose. The verification process is intended to enable the employer to make an informed assessment of the candidate's character. By suppressing the information, the petitioner deprived the employer of that opportunity at the relevant time. III. Distineuishins the precedents relied upon by the petitioner In the case of T.S. Vasudeuan Nalr (supra 3), the non-disclosure related to a conviction under the Defence of India Rules for shouting slogans during the Emergency. The case is of a political act in a different era. The Honble Supreme Court, in the special facts, held that employment should not be denied solely for ttrat non-disclosure. The present case involves suppression of a Criminal Case pertaining to dishonesty (cheating and impersonation), r.vhich is fundamentally different in nature and materiality. In the case of So;ndeep l{umqr (supra 4), the suppression related to a case under Sections 325 and 34 IPC (voluntarily t2 causing hurt) committed when the candidate was about 20 years olcl. The Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized the need to condone youthful indiscretions. In the present case, the petitioner was about 23 years old, at the time of the offence, and more importantly, the offence involved deceit and moral turpitude, not a simple act of physical altercation. Moreover, the post of a Head Constable (the post in Sandeep Kumar's case (supra 4)) and a Training Officer have different dimensions of expected integrity. In the case of Avtar Singh (supra 5), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down a nuanced approach, in respect of suppression of material information in employment matters. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the employer must consider all reievant aspects, including the nature of the post, the seriousness of the offence, the candidate's explanation and the fact of subsequent disclosure. Crucially, the Court held that in cases where the suppressed information is material and the offence involves moral turpitude, the employer is justified in cancelling the candidature. In the present case, the respondents applied their mind, obtained legal opinion and concluded that the suppression was material and went to the 13 root of the petitioner's suitability, which is a legitimate exercise of discretion in line with Avtar Stngh's case (supra 5). In the cases of Bho;uesh Patil (supra 6) and Dhaual Singh (supra 71, the Courts therein found that the non-disclosure was not witful or that the subsequent disclosure was prompt and bonafide. In the present case, the suppression was clear and the correction came only after the verification process had commeuced. In Mohantmed Imron (supra 8), the case involved discrimination between two similarly situated acquitted persons. No such discrimination is pleaded or proved in the present case. IV. Applicabilitv of Chetan Je:tf'q case and Chandraieet Kumar q-dbr t This Court is of the view that the Tribunal rightly placed reliance on the above judgments. In Chetan Jeffs case (supra 1) the Hon'ble Supreme Court strongly deprecated the suppression of criminal antecedents by, a candidate for a uniformed service stating that such conduct demonstrates a lack of integrity and cannot be tolerated. In Chandraieet Kumar Gond's case (supra 21, the Court held that a candidate who deliberately conceals material information d.oes not deserve t4 any sympath)'. In our considered opinion, these principles apply squarely to the present case. V. Volu tan, disclo re and exe rcise of dis It is to be noted that the petitioner's letter dated 12.10.2017 does not alter the situation. A disclosure made n after the verification process is set in motion cannot be termed voluntary in the true sense. It is a corrective measure prompted by the apprehension of detection. In any event, even if the disclosure was voluntary, the employer is not bound to ignore the initial suppression. The employer has the discretion to decide whether thc lapse shourd be condoned. In this case, the respondents, after due consideration, decided that the suppression was material and warranted cancellation. Such a decis.ipn, taken in accordance with Rules and after proper I application of mind, cannot be faulted as arbitrary or unfair. Conclusion

8. Pubiic employment, especially in a capatity that involves mentoring and training, demands the highest standards of honesty.and transparency. The petitioner failed the test at the threshold by suppressing materiar information about his involvement in a criminal case involving dishonesty. The subsequent acquittal does not wash away the act of l5 suppression. The respondents' decision to cancel his candidature was logical, lawful and proportionate.

9. The Central Administrative Tribunal correctly appreciated the facts and lau, and committed no error warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of t'he Constitution. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/-S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY/ To,

1. One CC to SRt. T. SANJAY REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRl. N. BHUJANGA RAO, Deputy Solicitor Generalof lndia 3. Two CD Copies IoPUCI BM BS ^TT * \r' HIGH COURT DATED:19/1 212025 ORDER WP.No.37610 of 2025 STA () 02ttBM * .i. DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS svv'