1.

Juvenile Justice Act

19. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction. —
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a juvenile who has
committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of this Act
shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence
under such law.
(2) The Board shall make an order directing that the relevant records of such
conviction shall be removed after the expiry of the period of appeal or a
reasonable period as prescribed under the rules, as the case may be.

2. High Court has held that once probation is granted, no disqualification can
be attached with the accuse and he cannot be denied a government job for
his involvement in the offence.

 A bench of Justice Muralidhar and Justice Mehta has passed the order in case
titled SHAITAN SINGH MEENA vs UNION OF INDIA on 24.04.2019.

Petitioner applied under ST category for the above post pursuant to an

advertisement issued in the Employment News 28th May 2016 to 3rd June
2016. On 4th September 2016, he cleared the written exam. He later cleared
the trade test. He was also found fit in the medical examination held on 18th
November 2016. When the Petitioner did not receive an appointment letter,
he filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. In response
thereto, a letter dated 18th January 2017 was sent to him by Respondent No.2
informing him that during police verification he was found to have been
convicted for the aforementioned offences and, therefore, his candidature
stood cancelled. Petitioner therefore approached the High Court and informed
that by a judgment dated 1st December 2016 in Criminal Case No.129 of 2013
arising out of the aforementioned FIR 21 of 2013, the Trial Court while
convicting the Petitioner and his brother for the aforementioned offences gave
them the benefit of probation by applying Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 (‗POA‘) and directing them to furnish a personal bond of
Rs.10,000/- each apart from paying costs of Rs.2,200/-. The trial Court imposed
a condition that neither accused would commit any offence for a period of two
years thereafter and subject thereto shall get the benefit of Section 12 of the
POA. The two-year period has since elapsed and in the interregnum, there has
been no criminal case involving the Petitioner. The department however has
objected to the challenge by taking a plea that release of the Petitioner under
Section 4 of the POA would not obliterate the conduct/act which constituted
the offence, for which he has already been convicted. The stand is that Section
12 POA would not take away the effect of conviction for the purposes of
employment in Government service. High Court posed a basic question
“whether the grant of the benefit of probation to a person in a criminal case
will act as a disqualification for such person being appointed to a post?” High
Court observed “The title of the Section itself is ‘removal of disqualification
attaching to conviction’. There are decisions which explain that the grant of the
benefit of probation in a criminal case would not attract disqualification for
appointment to a post in government service on account of Section 12 of the
POA”. It also observed “The above three decisions of the DB explain the legal
position as regards grant of the benefit of probation and consequently Section
12 POA even while convicting a person. The object of Section 12 POA is to
remove the disqualification attaching to the conviction. Another factor to be
noted is that in each of the above three decisions, there was an additional issue
regarding non-disclosure by the Petitioners of their involvement in the criminal
case. Yet, that did not come in the way of their being held not disqualified for
appointment to the respective posts in government service”.

High Court then issued the direction as “For the aforementioned reasons, this
Court sets aside the decision of the Respondents to cancel the candidature of
the Petitioner, as communicated to him by the impugned communication dated
18th January 2017. A direction is issued to the Respondent No.1 to pass an
appropriate order appointing the Petitioner to the post of Limb Maker
Carpenter in the ALC within a period of 12 weeks from today”.

Section 4 in The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958

4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.—
(1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the
person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of
the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender,
it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then,
notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in
force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment
direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties,
to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not
exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep
the peace and be of good behaviour: Provided that the court shall not direct
such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety,
if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which
the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during
the period for which he enters into the bond.
(2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into
consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation
to the case.
(3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court may, if it is of
opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so
to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall
remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during
such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and
may in such supervision order, impose such conditions as it deems necessary
for the due supervision of the offender.
(4) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the
offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties,
to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional
conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other
matter as the court may, having regard to the particular circumstances,
consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a
commission of other offences by the offender.
(5) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to
the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish
one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any,
and the probation officer concerned.

3. Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh

Satish Kumar vs D/O Post on 8 February, 2019
The facts are broadly not in dispute. The respondents issued an
advertisement dated 21.2.2014 inviting applications from ( Satish Kumar vs.
UOI & Ors.) eligible candidates for filling up of vacancies of Postal
Assistants/Sorting Assistants/Postal Assistants(Saving Bank Control
Organization)/Postal Assistants (Foreign Post Organization)/Postal
Assistants (Returned letter offices)/Postal Assistants (Mail Motor Services)
and Postal Assistants ( Circle & Regional Offices) for the year 2013-2014.
The applicant being eligible applied for the post of Postal Assistant and
appeared in the written examination. He was subjected to aptitude test and
typing/computer test which was held during 12.7.2014 to 14.7.2014. His
name was provisionally included in the list of selected candidates for the
said post vide letter dated 21.10.2014 (Annexure A-3) which was subject to
verification of documents like educational qualification, caste, age, police
verification and fulfillment of other terms and conditions, as mentioned in
the advertisement. The applicant submitted the attested form in triplicate
on 10.11.2014 and the same was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner
Office, Jhajjar to Superintendent of Police for verification of character and
antecedents. Vide letter dated 14.1.2015, the Superintendent of Police,
Jhajjar, intimated the Deputy Commissioner, Jhajjar, that an FIR No.302
dated 17.5.2013 under sections 323, 325, 34 IPC has been registered
against the applicant and the trial is going in the court of law. On the basis
of the information received from the office of Superintendent of Police,
Jhajjar, that the applicant has not disclosed the factum of criminal case
pending against him, the applicant‟s form was looked into wherein it was
found that he has not filled column no.12. Subsequent to that, the applicant
submitted an application dated 4.3.2015 intimating the department that he
has been fully exonerated by the court of law vide judgment dated
25.2.2015 and ( Satish Kumar vs. UOI & Ors.) accordingly he be issued
appointment letter. In view of the above background, the applicant was
issued a show cause notice dated 5.5.2015 ( Annexure A-8 ) for cancellation
of his candidature for appointment to the post of Postal Assistant, to which
the applicant submitted his reply on 25.5.2015 (Annexure A-9). The
respondents vide impugned order dated 19.6.2015 had cancelled his
candidature and removed his name from the list of provisional selected list.
Hence the OA. we are of the considered view that since the applicant has
concealed the material information from the respondents of registration of
an FIR against him, while submitting his attestation form, though he was
acquitted in the criminal case at a later stage, but the fact remains that he
knowing fully has withheld the information which/is important and
mandatory for the employer to form a view that whether they will
employment to such candidate or not. Withholding of material information
sought by the employer or furnishing false information itself amounts to
moral turpitude and is separate and distinct from the involvement in a
criminal case. Dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and
benefit those persons who have frauded or misrepresented themselves. It is
equally settled by the Lordships that sympathy have no role to play while
 discharging judicial functions. Thus, the applicant deserves no sympathy
and the ratio of law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the pointed
cases applies on all fours to the facts and circumstances of the instant OA.

4. Allahabad High Court

Sanny Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 19 March, 2021

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 15.06.2020 passed by respondent
no. 3- Superintendent of Police, Jalaun, cancelling his selection as Constable in
the U.P. Police. The recruitment process for various posts in the U.P. Police was
initiated by notification dated 14.01.2018. The petitioner applied in response
to the said notification. The petitioner was selected for appointment to the
post of Constable in the UP Police. learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that the petitioner had truthfully declared details of all the criminal cases
pending against him in the affidavit of verification. The petitioner has not been
chargesheeted in two cases. One of the cases is an offshoot of a matrimonial
dispute of his brother. The impugned order has overlooked the acquittal of the
petitioner by the court in one criminal case. The authority has not adopted any
standard of evidence while considering the material against the petitioner. In
absence of conviction by a court, appointment cannot be refused.  learned
Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. submits that the petitioner was named
in multiple criminal cases. The petitioner was not acquitted honourably by the
trial court in the first case. The petitioner was named in the first information
reports lodged in the other cases including one for an act of moral turpitude.
The fact that the Investigation Officer did not chargesheet the petitioner does
not exonerate the petitioner, particularly, when trials are on foot.  The
pleadings in the writ petition and the material in the record before this Court,
do not establish any perversity in the findings. In these facts, disclosure of the
criminal cases by the petitioner is not a defence against cancellation of his
selection.. In wake of the preceding discussion, the impugned order dated
15.06.2020 passed by respondent no. 3- Superintendent of Police, Jalaun is not
liable to be interfered with.

5. NEW DELHI: A person facing criminal cases cannot be considered suitable

for appointment in government service unless acquitted of the charges, the
Supreme Court has held.
 Quashing the appointment of constable SK Nazrul Islam, the apex court
said, "Surely, the authorities entrusted with the responsibility of appointing
constables were under duty to verify the antecedents of a candidate to find
out whether he is suitable for the post of constable.

"And so long as the candidate has not been acquitted in the criminal case of
the charges he cannot possibly be held to be suitable for appointment to
the post of constable.

6. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
METHU MEDA                  …RESPONDENT

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/
2014/18187/18187_2014_8_1501_30676_Judgement_06-Oct-2021.pdf

The facts unfolded in the present case are that the respondent was
found involved in an offence of kidnapping of Nilesh for demand of ransom.
respondent applied for the post of Constable in Central Industrial Security
Force (for short “CISF”) and got selected through the Staff Selection
Commission (for short “SSC”). An offer of appointment for provisional
selection to the post of Constable/GD was issued to the respondent on
30.3.2012, subject to the conditions given in the agreement form. The
respondent was required to furnish the documents including attestation forms,
certificate of character, character and antecedent certificate from local Station
House Officer. The respondent, while submitting the attestation form,
specified the registration of above¬said criminal case and acquittal from
the charges in a trial by the competent court. If a person is acquitted giving him
the benefit of doubt, from the charge of an offence involving moral turpitude
or because the witnesses turned hostile, it would not automatically entitle him
for the employment, that too in disciplined force. The employer is having a
right to consider his candidature in terms of the circulars issued by the
Screening Committee. The mere disclosure of the offences alleged and the
result of the trial is not sufficient. In the said situation, the employer cannot be
compelled to give appointment to the candidate. this Court in Union
Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Ors. vs. Pradeep Kumar and
Anr. (2018) 1 SCC 797, relying upon the judgment of S. Samuthiram
(supra) said that acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive of the suitability
of the candidates on the post concerned. It is observed, acquittal or
discharge of a person cannot always be inferred that he was falsely involved or
he had no criminal antecedent. The said issue has further been considered in
Mehar Singh (supra) holding non¬examination of key witnesses leading to
acquittal is not honourable acquittal, in fact, it is by giving benefit of doubt.
The Court said nature of acquittal is necessary for core consideration. If
acquittal is not honourable, the candidates are not suitable for government
service and are to be avoided. The relevant factors and the nature of
offence, extent of his involvement, propensity of such person to indulge in
similar activities in future, are the relevant aspects for consideration

7. There are two kinds of charges which can be filed against a person: Civil and
Criminal. Civil charges do not affect the position in government jobs.
State Of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Nazrul Islam (Supreme Court of India)- A
person facing criminal cases cannot be considered suitable for appointment in
government service unless acquitted of the charges, the Supreme Court has
held. Quashing the appointment of constable SK Nazrul Islam, the apex court
said, “Surely, the authorities entrusted with the responsibility of appointing
constables were under duty to verify the antecedents of a candidate to find
out whether he is suitable for the post of constable.” “And so long as the
candidate has not been acquitted in the criminal case of the charges he cannot
possibly be held to be suitable for appointment to the post of constable.” A
bench of justices R V Raveendran and A K Patnaik passed the judgement while
upholding the West Bengal government’s appeal challenging the high court’s
direction to appoint Islam despite the fact that he was facing criminal charges.
Islam who was provisionally recruited in 2007 but during verification, it came
to light that he was on bail and facing criminal charges under several IPC
sections. The government soon terminated his appointment.

8. The case of Commr. of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644, the

respondent Sandeep Kumar’s candidature for the post of Head Constable had
been cancelled on ground that he had concealed his involvement in a criminal
case under Sections 325/34 IPC when he was aged about 20 years. In these
circumstances, the Supreme Court held as under:
“We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his
candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter.
When the incident happened, the respondent must have been about 20 years
of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such
indiscretions can often be condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are
not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our
approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people
rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.”
“It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he
was involved in a criminal case under Sections 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not
mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be
disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder,
dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter.”
9.Pravin Arjun Shetkar v. State of Goa, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 6654.
In view of the above, your acquittal in the offence under Section 324 IPC at a
time when you were about 14 years of age should not disqualify you from
getting the Government job. At the same time, you should not conceal the
information about such acquittal and mention such information transparently
and correctly in the attestation form that you are required to fill up for police
verification at the time of getting the job.

10. Satish Kumar vs D/O Post on 8 February, 2019

The question that looms large before us is whether a candidate, who

concealed the information by not filling in the requisite column of pendency of
a criminal case, can seek invalidation of action of respondents in cancelling his
candidature or not ?

The question is not whether the applicant is suitable for the post or not. The
case pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude, but
suppressing this information itself amounts to moral turpitude. In fact, the
information sought for by the employer if not disclosed by the
employee/candidate, as required in the application form, would definite
amount to suppression of material information. In that eventuality, the service
of the employee is liable to be terminated even if he stands
acquitted/discharged later on. In such circumstances, the Court should not
perpetuate the fraudulent entry of such persons. The Lordships in the case of
Avtar Singh versus Union of India (2016(8) S.C.C. Page 471 thrashed out the
entire law on this issue. A Division Bench of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case
of Jainendra Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. ( 2012(8) S.C.C. Page

748) has referred the matter to the Larger Bench, when faced with the
diversion views on the issue, and the matter was placed before the Hon‟ble
Three Judges in the above noted case and the reference reads as under:-

"29. As noted by us, all the above decisions were rendered by a Division Bench
of this Court consisting of two Judges and having bestowed our serious
consideration to the issue, we consider that while dealing with such an ( Satish
Kumar vs. UOI & Ors.) issue, the Court will have to bear in mind the various
cardinal principles before granting any relief to the aggrieved party, namely:

29.1. Fraudulently obtained orders of appointment could be legitimately

treated as voidable at the option of the employer or could be recalled by the
employer and in such cases merely because the respondent employee has
continued in service for a number of years, on the basis of such fraudulently
obtained employment, cannot get any equity in his favour or any estoppel
against the employer. 29.2. Verification of the character and antecedents is
one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable
to the post under the State and on account of his antecedents, the appointing
authority if find not desirable to appoint a person to a disciplined force can it
be said to be unwarranted.

29.3. When appointment was procured by a person on the basis of forged

documents, it would amount to misrepresentation and fraud on the employer
and, therefore, it would create no equity in his favour or any estoppel against
the employer while resorting to termination without holding any inquiry.

29.4. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false

information cannot claim right to continue in service and the employer, having
regard to the nature of employment as well as other aspects, has the
discretion to terminate his services.

11. In the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v Union of India through its
Secretary and Anr.[2] It was held that framing of charges and formally
informing of charges is an important step. If this step was not taken
immediately firstly it will affect the right of a speedy trial and secondly, the
suspension of the employee gets extended. The ruling of the Supreme Court
say, a government employee cannot be suspended for more than three
months; if he is not formally informed of the charges framed against him.

12. In the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others[3], the petitioner
was involved in any criminal case due to which his appointment in CRPF was
canceled and service was terminated. An FIR was lodged under various
sections of IPC. The Supreme Court gave the ruling that an employer can act
against someone who discloses incorrect or misleading information. The court
issued guidelines for the same, they are-

1. The information about any charges (Conviction, arrest, or acquittal) must

be provided correctly to the employer; and no fact should be suppressed
or falsely represented.
2. Even if the employee has declared all the pending charges, the employer
is not bound to recruit the person.
3. In case of multiple criminal cases and intentional suppression of the
charges, the employer may cancel the appointment. The employer can
also suspend the employee from the service or take a decision as it may
deem fit.