ORDER : 1. Heard Sri. Srinivas Gangishetti learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 41476 of 2022, Sri B. Arjun learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 43715 of 2022, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sai Prasen Gundavaram, representing Smt. K. Uday Sri in W.P. No. 30029 of 2017, Smt. V. Uma Devi learned standing counsel for the High Court for the State of Telangana, appearing for respondents in W.P. Nos. 41476 and 43715 of 2022 and Sri Y. Rama Rao, learned standing counsel for the High Court for the State of Telangana in W.P. No. 30029 of 2017. 2. Since the issue involved in the three writ petitions is same, all the three writ petitions are considered and decided by this common order. W.P. No. 41476 of 2022: 3. Pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 21.01.2021 concerning Nizamabad District Judicial Ministerial Service, petitioner applied for the post of Officer Subordinate, participated in the selection process and was provisionally selected. His provisional selection was intimated vide letter dated 14.02.2022. Against column No. 11 of attestation form, which deals with arrest, detention, conviction etc, petitioner wrote ‘NO’. On verification of antecedents, by order dated 09.09.2022 the provisional selection of petitioner was cancelled on the ground that he did not disclose information regarding crime registered against him. 4. The wife of the petitioner filed criminal complaint against petitioner alleging that petitioner and his family members were harassing her physically and mentally, and were also demanding additional dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/- and driven her out from their house and that she was living with her parents. Crime No. 448 of 2011 was registered under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prevention Act, 1961 against him on 24.12.2011 in C.C. No. 506 of 2013 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Bodhan and same was compounded in Lok-Adalath on 5.3.2016 held at Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Bodhan. The registration of the said crime and the result of the crime was not disclosed by the petitioner. 5. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the inter se dispute was compromised before the Lok Adalat and accordingly, the Lok Adalat passed Award acquitting the petitioner from the offences alleged against him. The registration of the said crime and the result of the crime was not disclosed by the petitioner. 5. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the inter se dispute was compromised before the Lok Adalat and accordingly, the Lok Adalat passed Award acquitting the petitioner from the offences alleged against him. In view of the acquittal granted by the Lok Adalat, merely because petitioner has not disclosed the registration of crime, cannot be viewed as grave, leading to cancellation of his provisional selection to the post of Office Subordinate. 6. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on following decisions: (i) Avatar Singh vs. Union of India, 2016 (8) SCC 471 (ii) Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India and Another, 2022 Law Suit (SC) 555 (iii) S. Churchil vs. State and Others, W.P. No. 2397 of 2013 7. According to learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, petitioner was involved in a crime under Section 498-A, was detained by police and was discharged by way of compromise before Lok Adalath. His involvement; arrest and discharge were not disclosed by the petitioner. These facts came to light only in police verification. It thus amounts to suppression of his past criminal record. Such person is not entitled to seek public employment. She produced the copy of bail bond dated 28.12.2011 releasing the petitioner on furnishing two sureties for Rs. 5,000/- each and it is contended that petitioner was arrested and released on furnishing sureties, whereas, he has not disclosed the said arrest in column No. 11 of the attestation form filled by him and the same thing amounts to suppression of relevant facts. She would submit that no illegality was committed by respondents while canceling the provisional selection of petitioner. 8. In support of the above contentions, learned standing counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Chetan Jeff, 2022 Live Law (SC) 483. W.P. No. 43715 of 2022: 9. In response to the notification dated 31.07.2019 petitioner participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Office Subordinate in Adilabad District. Based on the performance of the petitioner in the written examination, petitioner was provisionally selected and accordingly, the same was intimated to him vide letter dated 14.02.2022. W.P. No. 43715 of 2022: 9. In response to the notification dated 31.07.2019 petitioner participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Office Subordinate in Adilabad District. Based on the performance of the petitioner in the written examination, petitioner was provisionally selected and accordingly, the same was intimated to him vide letter dated 14.02.2022. In column No. 11 of the attestation form which deals with arrest, detention conviction etc, the petitioner has written as “No.” On verification of antecedents, by proceedings dated 09.09.2022 the provisional selection of petitioner was cancelled on the ground of suppression of involvement of petitioner in two crimes, one of which resulted to conviction and imposing fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Challenging the same this writ petition is filed. 10. On verification of the antecedents of petitioner it was noticed that petitioner was involved in Crime No. 114 of 2014 under Sections 325 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code registered in Birkur Police Station. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. He was placed on trial in C.C. No. 359 of 2014, where under he was acquitted by the Hon’ble Judicial First Class Magistrate. Later, Crime No. 68 of 2021 under Section 9(1) of the Telangana Gaming (Amendment) Act, 2017 was registered in Nasrullabad Police Station. He was charge sheeted and placed on trial in C.C. No. 870 of 2021 before the Hon’ble Judicial First Class Magistrate, Banswada. By judgment dated 11.12.2021 petitioner was convicted and was imposed fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that non-disclosure of two petty crimes cannot take away the entitlement of petitioner for appointment. Involvement in petty offences does not have any impact on performance of duties and responsibilities to the post of Office Subordinate which is in the lowest in the hierarchy of District Judicial Ministerial Service and submits that cancellation of provisional selection of petitioner amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and the same is erroneous. Petitioner ought to have been appointed as Office Subordinate based on his performance in the examination conducted by the respondent. 12. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra) and Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India and Others, 2022 SCC Online SC 1300. 13. 12. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra) and Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India and Others, 2022 SCC Online SC 1300. 13. Learned standing counsel would submit that petitioner was involved in two crimes and in one crime he was convicted and imposed fine. Further, petitioner has not disclosed his involvement in two crimes in the attestation form. Therefore, on the ground of involvement in crimes, conviction and suppression of material information on above aspects the provisional selection was validly cancelled. W.P. No. 30029 of 2017: 14. The petitioner claims that he studied upto 10th class and belong to BC-A Category. A notification No. 2/2014 was issued on 12.08.2014 calling for applications to the post of Process Server and Office Subordinate in Karimnagar District. The petitioner applied to the post of Process Server. He was selected to the post of Process Server. After the selection process, during the Certificate Verification, the petitioner was asked to fill the attestation form furnished to him. In the attestation form, submitted on 11.03.2016, column no. 11 was left blank. The Column No. 11 of revised attestation form is reads as under: “Have you ever been arrested by the Police, convicted by a court of law or detained under any state/central preventive detention laws for any offences. Whether such conviction sustained in the Court of Appeal or set aside by the Appellate Court if appealed against. (Note: if detained, convicted, debarred etc., subsequent to the completion an submission of this form, the details should be communicated immediately to the concerned Department or to the authority to whom the Attestation form has been sent earlier, as the case may be failing which it will be deemed to be suppression of factual information). If the answer is “Yes” the full particulars of the conviction, sentences and detention should be give.” 15. The order of appointment was issued on 16.04.2016 appointing 23 candidates, wherein petitioner stood at Serial No. 10. However, it was mentioned against Petitioner that the posting orders would be issued after receiving antecedent reports from the Superintendent of Police. The antecedent verification report furnished by Police disclosed involvement of the petitioner in criminal case under Section 302 r/w Sections 34 and 201 of IPC. However, it was mentioned against Petitioner that the posting orders would be issued after receiving antecedent reports from the Superintendent of Police. The antecedent verification report furnished by Police disclosed involvement of the petitioner in criminal case under Section 302 r/w Sections 34 and 201 of IPC. He was placed on trial in S.C. No. 270 of 2004 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Khammam. The Sessions Court convicted him. However, in Criminal Appeal No. 903 of 2005, this Court by judgment dated 6.12.2006 acquitted the petitioner. 16. The Registrar (Recruitment, High Court) communicated to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, informing him that the petitioner cannot be considered for employment as he was involved in Crime, which itself is a misconduct. Further, it was requested to re-notify the post of Process Server against the roaster point for BC-A category. 17. The petitioner submitted representation on 22.12.2016 requesting to approve his candidature for appointment for the post of Process Server. The said request was rejected vide letter No. 1335/2014-Rc dated 23.01.2017 on the ground of suppression of information regarding his involvement in a crime. 18. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings in ROC. No. 1335/2014-RC, dated 24.11.2016 of the 2nd respondent and the connected records from the respondents No. 1 and 3 and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice; to declare the proceedings in the letter Roc. No. 1335/2014-RC, dated 23.01.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent; consequently direct the respondents to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Process Server in the unit of 1st respondent. 19.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though petitioner was convicted by the trial Court as he was acquitted he thought there was no need to disclose his involvement in the said crime. He would submit that as petitioner was not conversant with English language, he could not understand the purport of Column 11 and did not disclose anything in the said column and left it blank. 19.2. He would submit that by referring to a crime which ultimately ended in clean acquittal, petitioner cannot be denied employment. He would submit that as petitioner was not conversant with English language, he could not understand the purport of Column 11 and did not disclose anything in the said column and left it blank. 19.2. He would submit that by referring to a crime which ultimately ended in clean acquittal, petitioner cannot be denied employment. He would further submit that though by mistake he did not disclose his involvement in criminal case which ultimately lead to conviction by the Sessions Court and acquittal by the High Court, he realized that it was a mistake and secured the certified copies of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court and voluntarily submitted the same to the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 11.04.2006. Therefore, he submitted that it was not deliberate or intentional, but due to ignorance he did not initially disclose the involvement in criminal case and as soon as he realized that it was a mistake he immediately informed the same to the police authorities. 19.3. He would further submitted that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot be a ground to deny employment, more particularly to the post of Process Server, which is lower rank post in the District Judicial Ministerial Service. 19.4. He would further submitted that no reasons are assigned for cancellation of his employment; that on account of his selection and issuance of order of appointment, a right is accrued to the petitioner and such right cannot be taken away without following the due process. Elementary principle is that a person must be put on notice and he must be given opportunity of hearing and reasons must be assigned in support of the decision for cancellation of selection. On this ground alone the impugned decision is liable to be set aside. 19.5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avatar Singh vs. Union of India, 2016 (8) SCC 471 , Commissioner of Police vs. Dhawal Singh, 2019 (1) SCC 246 and B. Ramakrishna Yadav vs. Superintendent of Police, (2016) 2 ALD 340 . 20. Learned standing counsel would submit that petitioner has suppressed about his involvement in a serious crime and mere acquittal does not absolve him of his conduct in involving in a grave offence and suppression of such involvement. CONSIDERATION: 21. 20. Learned standing counsel would submit that petitioner has suppressed about his involvement in a serious crime and mere acquittal does not absolve him of his conduct in involving in a grave offence and suppression of such involvement. CONSIDERATION: 21. W.P. No. 41476 of 2022 is a case of suppression of involvement in a criminal case, which ended in acquittal by compromise before Lok-Adalath. W.P. No. 43715 of 2022 is a case of suppression of involvement in two crimes, one of which resulted in conviction. W.P. No. 30029 of 2017 is a case of suppression of involvement in a criminal case ultimately ended in acquittal. In all three cases, the criminal cases were concluded much prior to initiation of recruitment process. 22. In plethora of decisions, Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the aspect of involvement in crimes, conviction and suppression of information relating to involvement, arrest, conviction and its impact on the decision of employer to provide employment. Leading cases on the subject are discussed hereunder. (i) Avtar Singh (supra) (ii) State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Love Kush Meena, (2021) 8 SCC 774 (iii) Chetan Jeff (supra) (iv) Umesh Chandra Yadav vs. Inspector General and Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.F. Northern Railway, New Delhi and Others, 2022 SCC Online SC 299 (v) Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India and Another, 2022 SCC Online SC 532 (vi) Mohd. Imran vs. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 17 SCC 696 (vii) Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. (2011) 14 SCC 709 (viii) State of Haryana vs. Dinesh Kumar, (2008) 3 SCC 222 (ix) Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) It is expedient to consider the principles laid down in these decisions. 22.1. In Avtar Singh (supra), a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered extensively the effect of suppression of information or submitting false information in the verification Form submitted while seeking public employment and the effect on securing employment having been criminally prosecuted and/or arrested or as to the pendency of a criminal case. After observing and analysing a host of decisions, the three-judge bench formulated guiding principles on the above aspects while considering suitability of a person for employment. Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “30. The employer is given ‘discretion’ to terminate or otherwise to condone the omission. After observing and analysing a host of decisions, the three-judge bench formulated guiding principles on the above aspects while considering suitability of a person for employment. Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “30. The employer is given ‘discretion’ to terminate or otherwise to condone the omission. Even otherwise, once employer has the power to take a decision when at the time of filling verification form declarant has already been convicted/acquitted, in such a case, it becomes obvious that all the facts and attending circumstances, including impact of suppression or false information are taken into consideration while adjudging suitability of an incumbent for services in question. In case the employer comes to the conclusion that suppression is immaterial and even if facts would have been disclosed it would not have adversely affected fitness of an incumbent, for reasons to be recorded, it has power to condone the lapse. However, while doing so employer has to act prudently on due consideration of nature of post and duties to be rendered. For higher officials/higher posts, standard has to be very high and even slightest false information or suppression may by itself render a person unsuitable for the post. However, same standard cannot be applied to each and every post. In concluded criminal cases, it has to be seen what has been suppressed is material fact and would have rendered an incumbent unfit for appointment. An employer would be justified in not appointing or if appointed, to terminate services of such incumbent on due consideration of various aspects. Even if disclosure has been made truthfully, the employer has the right to consider fitness and while doing so effect of conviction and background facts of case, nature of offence, etc. have to be considered. Even if acquittal has been made, employer may consider nature of offence, whether acquittal is honourable or giving benefit of doubt on technical reasons and decline to appoint a person who is unfit or of dubious character. In case employer comes to conclusion that conviction or ground of acquittal in criminal case would not affect the fitness for employment incumbent may be appointed or continued in service.” xxx xxx xxx 35. Suppression of “material” information presupposes that what is suppressed that “matters” not every technical or trivial matter. In case employer comes to conclusion that conviction or ground of acquittal in criminal case would not affect the fitness for employment incumbent may be appointed or continued in service.” xxx xxx xxx 35. Suppression of “material” information presupposes that what is suppressed that “matters” not every technical or trivial matter. The employer 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 authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects. xxx xxx xxx 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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 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 suppressioveri or suggestiofalsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.” (Emphasis supplied) 22.2. In Umesh Chandra Yadav (supra,) the appellant was a juvenile (12 years) when criminal cases for the offences under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC were registered against them. It was alleged that the appellant had fabricated a fake caste certificate. The prosecution failed to collect enough evidence, and due to lack of evidence against the appellant, he was discharged on 15th December 2001. In the year, 2011 applicant had applied for the post of Constable in Railways Protection Force. He was selected and joined the training in November 2014. In 2015, on the premise of non-disclosure of above case filed against him, he was terminated. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even if suppression had taken place, the reviewing authorities should take into consideration the facts and circumstances and shouldn’t act in arbitrary manner. Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “15. This cannot be disputed that the candidate who intend to participate in the selection process is required to furnish correct information relating to his character and antecedents in the verification/attestation form before or after his induction into service. At the same time, it is also true that the person who has suppressed the material information, cannot claim unfettered right of seeking appointment or continuity in service but, at the same time, he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to be exercised in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts of case on hand. The yardstick which has to be applied always depends upon the nature of post, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by the competent authority considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due diligence of various aspects at the given time and no hard and fast rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard.” 17. In the instant case, the appellant was a juvenile when a criminal case was registered against him on 25th October 1997 and was also a juvenile when the order of discharge was passed by the learned trial Judge on 15th December, 2001. This was undisputedly a special circumstance indeed which was not taken into consideration by the authority while passing the order of cancellation of his appointment by order dated 19th February 2015. 18. The Division Bench, in the impugned judgment, has proceeded mechanically, without taking note of the fact that a juvenile could not have been entangled in a criminal complaint instituted against him in October 1997 and this fact remained unnoticed by the Division Bench that he was a juvenile when the order of discharge was passed on 15th December, 2001 and almost a decade thereafter, the process of selection came to be initiated by the respondents pursuant to an advertisement dated 23rd February 2011, the seriatim of facts cumulatively indicate that the nature of information which was not disclosed by the appellant, in any manner, could be considered to be a suppression of material information not being bona fidely disclosed in clause 12 of attestation form filled by him. In this regard, the finding which has been recorded by the Division Bench in holding that there was a suppression of material information is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside.” (Emphasis supplied) 22.3. In Satish Chandra Yadav (supra), the appellant was recruited for the post of a Constable (GD) in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on a probationary basis, pending verification of antecedents. While filling the requisite form at the time of his recruitment, against the column on pending criminal cases against him, he had answered that there weren’t any pending cases. Upon verification it was found out that a Criminal Complaint had been registered against the appellant for the offences under Sections 147, 323, 324, 504, 506 of IPC, following which the recruiting authority terminated the services of the appellant. Upon verification it was found out that a Criminal Complaint had been registered against the appellant for the offences under Sections 147, 323, 324, 504, 506 of IPC, following which the recruiting authority terminated the services of the appellant. The appellant challenged the dismissal by filing a Writ petition in the High Court of Delhi. The Division Bench remitted the matter to the Revisionary Authority for fresh consideration and directed the appellant to file a fresh representation. The representation filed by the appellant was rejected. The appellant filed a fresh Writ Petition against the action, wherein the Delhi High Court rejected the petition on the grounds that as a matter of fact while filling the form there were pending criminal proceedings and the appellant had answered in the negative. The appellant then filed a civil appeal in the Supreme Court. 22.4. Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the decision in Avtar Singh (supra) and several other decisions post Avtar Singh. The Supreme Court noticed that there has been inconsistency in the decisions and set out to carve out general principles by summarizing the views of the Supreme Court in the three Judge Bench in Avtar Singh (supra) and other coordinate benches and held that: “90. In such circumstances, we undertook some exercise to shortlist the broad principles of law which should be made applicable to the litigations of the present nature. The principles are as follows: (a) Each case should be scrutinized thoroughly by the public employer concerned, through its designated officials-more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society's security. [See Raj Kumar (supra)] (b) Even in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. The acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post. It would be still open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether the candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post. The acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post. It would be still open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether the candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post. (c) The suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification Form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee. If it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service. (d) The generalizations about the youth, career prospects and age of the candidates leading to condonation of the offenders' conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided. (e) The Court should inquire whether the Authority concerned whose action is being challenged acted mala-fide. (f) Is there any element of bias in the decision of the Authority? (g) Whether the procedure of inquiry adopted by the Authority concerned was fair and reasonable?” 22.5. Following these principles, the Court upheld the termination of the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the appellant (Satish Chandra) deliberately withheld relevant information which would speak greatly about his character and fitness. 22.6. The court also discussed briefly the “the doctrine of unreasonableness” in respect of discretionary decisions of the reviewing authority: “100. Administrative law has traditionally approached the review of decisions classified as discretionary separately from those seen as involving the interpretation of rules of law. The rule has been that the decisions classified as discretionary may only be reviewed on limited grounds such as the bad faith of decision-makers, the exercise of discretion for an improper purpose, and the use of irrelevant considerations. A general doctrine of “unreasonableness” has also sometimes been applied to the discretionary decisions. In our opinion, these doctrines incorporate two central ideas - those discretionary decisions, like all other administrative decisions, must be made within the bounds of the jurisdiction conferred by the statutory rules, but that considerable deference will be given to the decision-makers by the courts in reviewing the exercise of that discretion and determining the scope of the decision-makers' jurisdiction. In our opinion, these doctrines incorporate two central ideas - those discretionary decisions, like all other administrative decisions, must be made within the bounds of the jurisdiction conferred by the statutory rules, but that considerable deference will be given to the decision-makers by the courts in reviewing the exercise of that discretion and determining the scope of the decision-makers' jurisdiction. These doctrines recognize that it is the intention of a legislature, when using statutory language that confers broad choices on the administrative agencies, that courts should not lightly interfere with such decisions, and should give considerable respect to the decision-makers when reviewing the manner in which discretion was exercised. However, discretion must still be exercised in a manner that is within a reasonable interpretation of the margin of manoeuvre contemplated by the legislature, in accordance with the principles of the rule of law.” (Emphasis supplied) 22.7. InPawan Kumar (supra), the appellant was selected for the post of constable in Railway Protection Force (RPF), but during the training period he was discharged from the service stating that he had suppressed crime reported against him for the offences under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506, 356 of IPC. It was observed by the court that it was a false case registered against him and the appellant was honourably acquitted by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that even in cases of suppression by the candidate, the reviewing authority should refrain from acting in arbitrary manner, and consider the facts and circumstances on a case to case basis. It is held: “11. This cannot be disputed that the candidate who intends to participate in the selection process is always required to furnish correct information relating to his character and antecedents in the verification/attestation form before and after induction into service. It is also equally true that the person who has suppressed the material information or has made false declaration indeed has no unfettered right of seeking appointment or continuity in service, but at least has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to be judiciously exercised by the competent authority in a reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts of the case on hand. It goes without saying that the yardstick/standard which has to be applied with regard to adjudging suitability of the incumbent always depends upon the nature of post, nature of duties, effect of suppression over suitability to be considered by the authority on due diligence of various aspects but no hard and fast rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard. xxx xxx xxx 13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/ terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What being noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/ terminate the employee from service.” (Emphasis supplied) 22.8. The Hon’ble ‘Supreme Court further held that since there was clean acquittal of the appellant, the reviewing authority ought to have taken this fact into consideration: “17. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, at the time of attestation form filled by the appellant, the criminal case was already registered against him but it may be noticed that at the very threshold, the complainant filed his affidavit that the complaint on which FIR came to be registered was due to misunderstanding and he did not want to pursue his case any further, but still charge-sheet came to be filed and on the first date of hearing, the alleged victim PW-1 did not support case of the prosecution and thus the order of clean acquittal came to be passed by the learned Judge of competent jurisdiction by judgment dated 12th August, 2011. 18. 18. The criminal case indeed was of trivial nature and the nature of post and nature of duties to be discharged by the recruit has never been looked into by the competent authority while examining the overall suitability of the incumbent keeping in view Rule 52 of the Rules 1987 to become a member of the force. Taking into consideration the exposition expressed by this Court in Avtar Singh (supra), in our considered view the order of discharge passed by the competent authority dated 24th April, 2015 is not sustainable and in sequel thereto the judgment passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Delhi does not hold good and deserves to be set aside.” (Emphasis supplied) 22.9. In Ram Kumar (supra), the appellant had applied for the post of constable in the year 2006. During the recruitment process, in the affidavit he had stated that no criminal cases were registered against him. He was selected and deputed for training, pending antecedent verification. Upon verification it was found that there were indeed criminal cases filed against the appellant for the offences under Sections 324, 323, 504 of IPC in the year 2001. Subsequently the criminal case was disposed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in 2002 and the appellant was acquitted. The appellants selection was cancelled on the grounds that he had concealed material facts, had stated false information and procured the selection illegally. The Supreme Court observed that the reviewing authority ought to have considered the nature of suppression, examined the overall suitability of the appointment and not just mechanically act on the suppression. It was held: “12. On a reading of the order dated 18-7-2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate it would show that the sole witness examined before the court, PW-1, Mr Akhilesh Kumar, had deposed before the court that on 2-12-2000 at 4.00 p.m. children were quarrelling and at that time the appellant, Shailendra and Ajay Kumar amongst other neighbours had reached there and someone from the crowd hurled abuses and in the scuffle Akhilesh Kumar got injured when he fell and his head hit a brick platform and that he was not beaten by the accused persons by any sharp weapon. In the absence of any other witness against the appellant, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 323/34/504 IPC. In the absence of any other witness against the appellant, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 323/34/504 IPC. On these facts, it was not at all possible for the appointing authority to take a view that the appellant was not suitable for appointment to the post of a police constable.” xxx xxx xxx 14. As has been stated in the instructions in the Government Order dated 28-4-1958, it was the duty of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, as the appointing authority, to satisfy himself on the point as to whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of a constable, with reference to the nature of suppression and nature of the criminal case. Instead of considering whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of male constable, the appointing authority has mechanically held that his selection was irregular and illegal because the appellant had furnished an affidavit stating the facts incorrectly at the time of recruitment.” 22.10. In Mohd. Imran (supra), the appellant applied for Judicial Service, cleared the exam and was selected in the year 2009. During the appointment he had truthfully declared to the authorities that he had been involved in criminal proceedings where he was acquitted for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 34 of IPC in the year 2004. The appellant’s selection was cancelled by an order in 2010 on the ground of ‘moral turpitude’. The Supreme Court was of the view the reviewing authority cannot always mechanically invoke moral turpitude and deny appointments to the selected candidates, instead observe the facts and circumstances of the case. It was held: “5. Employment opportunities are a scarce commodity in our country. Every advertisement invites a large number of aspirants for limited number of vacancies. But that may not suffice to invoke sympathy for grant of relief where the credentials of the candidate may raise serious questions regarding suitability, irrespective of eligibility. Undoubtedly, judicial service is very different from other services and the yardstick of suitability that may apply to other services, may not be the same for a judicial service. But there cannot be any mechanical or rhetorical incantation of moral turpitude, to deny appointment in judicial service simplicitor. Much will depend on the facts of a case. Undoubtedly, judicial service is very different from other services and the yardstick of suitability that may apply to other services, may not be the same for a judicial service. But there cannot be any mechanical or rhetorical incantation of moral turpitude, to deny appointment in judicial service simplicitor. Much will depend on the facts of a case. Every individual deserves an opportunity to improve, learn from the past and move ahead in life by self-improvement. To make past conduct, irrespective of all considerations, an albatross around the neck of the candidate, may not always constitute justice. Much will, however depend on the fact situation of a case.” 6. That the expression “moral turpitude” is not capable of precise definition was considered in Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 4 SCC 17 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 583, opining: (SCC p. 21, Para 12) “12. “Moral turpitude” is an expression which is used in legal as also societal parlance to describe conduct which is inherently base, vile, depraved or having any connection showing depravity. xxx xxx xxx 10. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the consideration of the candidature of the appellant and its rejection are afflicted by a myopic vision, blurred by the spectacle of what has been described as moral turpitude, reflecting inadequate appreciation and application of facts also, as justice may demand.” (Emphasis supplied) 22.11. In Dinesh Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the question as to what constitutes an arrest during criminal proceedings while answering the question on entry in the form/column ‘have you ever been arrested.” In this case the contention of the appellants was that since they had appeared before the magistrate and acquired bail, they were under an impression that they weren’t technically arrested. The Supreme Court held in the negative, but with word of caution: “26. It is no doubt true that in the instant case the accused persons had appeared before the Magistrates concerned with their learned advocates and on applying for bail were granted bail without being taken into formal custody, which appears to have swayed one of the Benches of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to take a liberal view and to hold that no arrest had actually been effected. The said view, in our opinion, is incorrect as it goes against the very grain of Sections 46 and 439 of the Code. xxx xxx xxx 31. In our view, the reasoning given in Dinesh Kumar's case in that context is a possible view and does not call for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. Conversely, the decision rendered in the writ petitions filed by Lalit Kumar and Bhupinder has to be reversed to be in line with the decision in Dinesh Kumar's case. When the question as to what constitutes “arrest” has for long engaged the attention of different High Courts as also this Court, it may not be altogether unreasonable to expect a layman to construe that he had never been arrested on his appearing before the court and being granted bail immediately. The position would have been different, had the person concerned not been released on bail. We would, in the facts of these cases, give the benefit of a mistaken impression, rather than that of deliberate and wilful misrepresentation and concealment of facts, to the appellants in the second of the two appeals as well, while affirming the view taken by the High Court in Dinesh Kumar's case.” (Emphasis supplied) 23. From these precedent decisions, it emerges that the yardstick to follow in the cases of suppression varies from the nature of post being applied to: (i) The suppression cannot automatically result in disqualification. The employer is required to verify nature of involvement; result of involvement in crime and nature of the post. (ii) In recruitment to the ‘uniformed/disciplined/police force, the yardstick to examine the suppression is of higher degree. (iii) further, the reviewing authorities ought not to consider the suppression in isolation, but also consider the overall suitability of the candidate to the post concerned. (iv) The authorities should refrain from cancelling appointments in a mechanical and arbitrary manner, but apply the mind, and examine the facts on a case to case basis. 24. Column No. 11 of the attestation form reads as under: “11. Have you ever been arrested by the police, convicted by a court of law or detained under any state/central preventive detention laws for any offence? Whether such conviction sustained in the Court of Appeal or set aside by the Appellate Court if appealed against. (Note: If detained, convicted, debarred etc. Have you ever been arrested by the police, convicted by a court of law or detained under any state/central preventive detention laws for any offence? Whether such conviction sustained in the Court of Appeal or set aside by the Appellate Court if appealed against. (Note: If detained, convicted, debarred etc. subsequent to the completion and submission of this form, the details should be communicated immediately to the concerned Department or the authority to whom the Attestation Form has been sent earlier, as the case may be, failing which it will be deemed to be suppression of factual information). If the answer is ‘Yes’ the full particulars of the conviction, sentences and detention should be given.” 25. Against the above extracted column, petitioners have written as “No”/left blank. In other words, petitioners have not disclosed crimes registered against them and conviction/acquittal in the crimes. 26. Having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the precedent decisions, it is expedient to consider the impact of non-disclosure/suppression and the decisions of respondents to disqualify them in these three writ petitions. We are also alive to the fact that petitioners are seeking employment in Judicial Ministerial Service. W.P. No. 41476 of 2022: 27. Wife of petitioner lodged complaint with the Police alleging dowry harassment. Based on the said complaint, crime was registered. On completion of investigation, Police filed charge-sheet and petitioner was placed on trial. At that stage, husband and wife decided to burry their differences and appeared before the Lok-Adalat. Before the Lok-Adalat, wife withdrew the complaint. Based on their understanding, by the Award of Lok-Adalat, petitioner was acquitted. The couples are stated to be living together happily thereafter. All this happened much prior to initiation of recruitment process. What was alleged against petitioner was a matrimonial dispute, as a result of disharmony between two spouses, but ended in a fairy tale reunion. 28. Petitioner applied to the post of Office Subordinate, a post at the lower rung of the Judicial Ministerial Service. A non-technical post. His selection was cancelled only on the ground of non-disclosure of crime registered against him. 28. Petitioner applied to the post of Office Subordinate, a post at the lower rung of the Judicial Ministerial Service. A non-technical post. His selection was cancelled only on the ground of non-disclosure of crime registered against him. Having due regard to the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the competent authority ought to have considered the nature of crime, the result of the crime and the nature of post, petitioner was selected, instead of mechanically rejecting the candidature only on the ground of non-disclosure of involvement in a crime. 29. Though learned standing counsel asserted that petitioner was deemed to have been arrested as he was released by granting station bail on furnishing sureties, it is too technical to expect a low educated person to understand that he was actually arrested. Thus, his nondisclosure of securing station bail is not fatal to throw him out on that ground. 30. In the facts of this case, it is expedient to reconsider the eligibility of petitioner for employment as Office Subordinate. The person should be given an opportunity to turn a new leaf. In Pawan Kumar (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court said “It goes without saying that the yardstick/ standard which has to be applied with regard to adjudging suitability of the incumbent always depends upon the nature of post, nature of duties, effect of suppression over suitability to be considered by the authority on due diligence of various aspects but no hard and fast rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard.” W.P. No. 43715 of 2022: 31. Petitioner was involved in two crimes. There are two aspects requiring consideration in this case. Firstly, though he was involved in two crimes, he did not disclose his involvement. The same amounts to suppression of material fact. Secondly, he was convicted in a case and imposed fine. Thus, it is not a simple case of suppression of involvement in crimes, which have ended in acquittal. The conviction is under Telangana Gaming Act. Person addicted to gaming activity cannot be said as suitable to seek public employment, that too in Judicial Ministerial Service. Thus, we see no error in the decision of respondents annulling the provisional selection of petitioner. 32. At this stage, it is apt to note one of the conclusions recorded in Avtar Singh. It reads: “38.4. Person addicted to gaming activity cannot be said as suitable to seek public employment, that too in Judicial Ministerial Service. Thus, we see no error in the decision of respondents annulling the provisional selection of petitioner. 32. At this stage, it is apt to note one of the conclusions recorded in Avtar Singh. It reads: “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: xxx xxx xxx 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.” W.P. No. 30029 of 2017: 33. In the attestation form, against column-11, petitioner left blank. His appointment order clearly stated that he was temporarily appointed pending verification of antecedents and that he would be given posting orders as Process Server only after antecedents are verified. As it turned out, petitioner did not disclose his involvement in a crime, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, though he was acquitted in appeal. He left the column blank. By virtue of acquittal granted by the appellate Court, the involvement in crime may have been wiped out, but his conduct in not disclosing involvement in the crime, conviction and sentence can still be looked into by the employer in assessing the suitability. A person seeking employment as Process Server in Judicial Ministerial Service should be fair and frank in disclosing involvement in crime. 34. Petitioner is trying to justify his conduct by stating that he was advised that as he was acquitted he need not disclose his involvement. This assertion goes contrary to the information sought in column-11. It requires to furnish details of case in which he was convicted by trial Court even if he was acquitted in appeal. There is no ambiguity in the column. A person seeking employment as Process Server, which is one of the vital cogs in dispensing justice in the District Judiciary cannot plead ignorance of requirement to state correct facts. It is also appropriate to note that the candidate is required to give declaration. There is no ambiguity in the column. A person seeking employment as Process Server, which is one of the vital cogs in dispensing justice in the District Judiciary cannot plead ignorance of requirement to state correct facts. It is also appropriate to note that the candidate is required to give declaration. The declaration clearly stipulates to state that furnishing false information or suppression of any factual information in the attestation form would be a disqualification and would render him unfit for employment. 35. In the facts of this case, we see no error in the decision of competent authority in annulling selection and appointment of petitioner as Process Server. 36. In Satish Chandra Yadav (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “90. In such circumstances, we undertook some exercise to shortlist the broad principles of law which should be made applicable to the litigations of the present nature. The principles are as follows: (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) Even in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. The acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post. It would be still open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether the candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post. (c) The suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification Form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee. If it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service.” (Emphasis supplied) 37. Accordingly, W.P. No. 41476 of 2022 is allowed. Respondents are directed to reconsider the entitlement of petitioner for appointment as Office Subordinate as per his selection pursuant to recruitment notification dated 21.01.2021 in Nizamabad District. 38. Writ Petition Nos. 30029 of 2017 and 43715 of 2022 are dismissed. 39. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.