ORDER : Heard Sri T.Sanjay Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India 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 01.04.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in O.A.No.359 of 2018, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the petitioner’s challenge to the cancellation of his provisional appointment to the post of Training Officer (Principal of Teaching) in the Directorate General of Training, Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship. Factual Background (in brief) 3. The factual background, as culled from the pleadings and annexed documents, is as under: i. The petitioner is an Engineering Graduate in Electronics and Communication Engineering (2009) and has prior work experience as an Instructor and Junior Consultant in various training institutes. ii. In response to Advertisement No.10/2016 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 India Test and at Sl.No.1 in the merit list after the interview. Petitioner was intimated of his provisional selection vide letter dated 10.04.2017, subject to verification of character and antecedents, medical fitness and other formalities. iii. The petitioner filled and submitted an Attestation Form on 20.03.2017. In Column 12 of the Form, which specifically requires the candidate to disclose whether he has ever been prosecuted, arrested, convicted, etc., the petitioner answered in the negative. iv. On 12.10.2017, the petitioner submitted a correction letter to the UPSC stating that he had inadvertently omitted to mention a Criminal Case (Crime No.28 of 2009 under Sections 419, 420 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. 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 Rules’) and that the offer of appointment could not be issued to the petitioner, the respondents cancelled the petitioner’s candidature vide letter dated 13.03.2018. vii. The petitioner challenged the said cancellation before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and relying on the Judgments in State of Rajasthan and others v. Chetan Jeff , (2022) 19 SCC 366 and Chandrajeet Kumar Gond v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & another, 2024 SCC OnLine All 251 dismissed the O.A. holding that the petitioner had suppressed material information deliberately and was not entitled to relief. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Submissions of the petitioner 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that: i. The suppression was not deliberate or mala fide. The petitioner voluntarily disclosed the fact of the Criminal Case and his acquittal in the same by his letter dated 12.10.2017, i.e., before any adverse order was passed. ii. The Criminal Case ended in acquittal as early as 05.05.2012. A person acquitted is entitled to be treated as innocent and the past incident should not be held against him. iii. 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. iv. The petitioner’s conduct during his earlier contractual employment with his employers was satisfactory, as evidenced by experience certificates. iii. 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. iv. The petitioner’s conduct during his earlier contractual employment with his employers was satisfactory, as evidenced by experience certificates. v. 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: a) T.S. Vasudevan Nair v. Director of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, 1988 Supp SCC 795 b) Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644 c) Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 d) Bhavesh Patil v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2012 SCC Online MP 9288 e) Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & another v. Dhaval Singh, (1999) 1 SCC 246 f) Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2019) 17 SCC 696 vi. The Tribunal erred in applying the law laid down in Chetan Jeff (supra) and Chandrajeet Kumar Gond (supra), which are distinguishable on facts. vii. The respondents ought to have exercised their discretion to condone the lapse, considering the petitioner’s merit, subsequent voluntary disclosure and the less serious nature of the offences alleged. Submissions of the respondents 5. Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned 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 petitioner, an Engineering Graduate in the attestation form was deliberate and material. The offences under Sections 419 and 420 IPC (impersonation and cheating) involve moral turpitude and are serious in the context of a Training Officer’s role, which demands integrity and trust. iii. The so-called ‘voluntary 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. 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 Chetan Jeff ’s case (supra) and Chandrajeet Kumar Gond ’s case (supra), which emphasize that a candidate must come with clean 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. 6. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged and considered the material on record. Legal Analysis: 7. The core issue in the present case is whether the cancellation of the petitioner’s candidature on the ground of suppression of material information in the attestation form is legally sustainable? I. The significance of the attestation form and the duty of disclosure It is pertinent to note that the attestation form is not a mere procedural formality. It is a vital instrument through which the employer assesses the character, antecedents and suitability of a candidate for public employment. The warning printed prominently on the attestation form (Annexure P-7) 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: 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 educated 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 petitioner, an educated 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 01.02.2010 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 information at the time of filling the form, hoping it would not surface. II. Materiality of the suppressed information The offences alleged i.e., impersonation and cheating under Sections 419 and 420 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 inherently unsuitable for such a role. The suppression itself demonstrates a lack of candour and integrity, 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. Distinguishing the precedents relied upon by the petitioner In the case of T.S. Vasudevan Nair (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 Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the special facts, held that employment should not be denied solely for that non-disclosure. The present case involves suppression of a Criminal Case pertaining to dishonesty (cheating and impersonation), which is fundamentally different in nature and materiality. In the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra 4), the suppression related to a case under Sections 325 and 34 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt) committed when the candidate was about 20 years old. 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. 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 relevant 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 root of the petitioner’s suitability, which is a legitimate exercise of discretion in line with Avtar Singh’ s case (supra 5). In the cases of Bhavesh Patil (supra 6) and Dhaval Singh (supra 7), the Courts therein found that the non-disclosure was not wilful or that the subsequent disclosure was prompt and bona fide. In the present case, the suppression was clear and the correction came only after the verification process had commenced. In Mohammed Imran (supra 8), the case involved discrimination between two similarly situated acquitted persons. No such discrimination is pleaded or proved in the present case. IV. Applicability of Chetan Jeff’s case and Chandrajeet Kumar Gond’s case This Court is of the view that the Tribunal rightly placed reliance on the above judgments. In Chetan Jeff ’s case (supra) 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 Chandrajeet Kumar Gond ’s case (supra), the Court held that a candidate who deliberately conceals material information does not deserve any sympathy. In our considered opinion, these principles apply squarely to the present case. In Chandrajeet Kumar Gond ’s case (supra), the Court held that a candidate who deliberately conceals material information does not deserve any sympathy. In our considered opinion, these principles apply squarely to the present case. V. Voluntary disclosure and exercise of discretion It is to be noted that the petitioner’s letter dated 12.10.2017 does not alter the situation. A disclosure made 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 the lapse should be condoned. In this case, the respondents, after due consideration, decided that the suppression was material and warranted cancellation. Such a decision, taken in accordance with Rules and after proper application of mind, cannot be faulted as arbitrary or unfair. Conclusion 8. Public employment, especially in a capacity that involves mentoring and training, demands the highest standards of honesty and transparency. The petitioner failed the test at the threshold by suppressing material information about his involvement in a Criminal Case involving dishonesty. The subsequent acquittal does not wash away the act of suppression. The respondents’ decision to cancel his candidature was logical, lawful and proportionate. 9. The Central Administrative Tribunal correctly appreciated the facts and law and committed no error warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the 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.