Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prasanjeet Chatterjee vs Union Of India on 20 July, 2026
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53725
1 MP-4332-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 20th OF JULY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 4332 of 2026
PRASANJEET CHATTERJEE
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Kumar Tripathi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Suyash Mohan Guru - Deputy Solicitor General for the
respondent-UOI.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
With consent, heard finally.
1. The present petition is preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, taking exception to order dated 16.07.2026 passed in
OA No.200/00975/13, whereby OA preferred by petitioner was dismissed by
learned CAT.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that respondent department
issued an advertisement to fill up the post of semi-skilled worker in Gun
Carriage Factory, Jabalpur. In response to that advertisement, petitioner
participated in fray and remained successful. Before issuing appointment
letter, police verification was carried out.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 21-07-2026
15:45:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53725
2 MP-4332-2026
3. It appears that in application form, petitioner disclosed some
criminal cases registered against him, while some cases were not
disclosed. It further appears that during police verification, it was found that
petitioner faced several other criminal cases in some of which trial was
conducted. A total of 4 cases were lodged against petitioner, in which trial
proceeded in three criminal cases and one was preventive/prohibitory
proceeding under Section 107-116 Cr.P.C.
4. Considering the criminal antecedents of petitioner, respondents
decided not to issue appointment letter to petitioner due to cases registered
against him. This gave cause of action to petitioner to file OA before
Tribunal.
5. Learned CAT, after considering rival submissions and evaluating
nature of criminal cases, declined to interfere in discretionary jurisdiction of
respondents to decide about suitability of petitioner. Therefore, petitioner is
before this Court.
6. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that learned
CAT erred in passing the impugned order. Since opposite side was lawyer,
false cases were registered against petitioner. While referring to judgment of
Apex Court in case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Ors. (2016) 8 SCC
471 and later pronouncements, it was contended that discretion is to be
exercised with objectivity.
7 . Learned counsel for respondents opposed contention and
supported impugned order. As submitted by learned Deputy Solicitor
General, appellant faced four criminal cases, in which one case was through
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 21-07-2026
15:45:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53725
3 MP-4332-2026
FIR, one case was through private complaint, and one case was of prohibitory
nature. Therefore, department as well as learned CAT rightly considered
facts and circumstances and passed orders.
8. Heard learned counsel for parties at length and perused record.
9. This is a case where petitioner is seeking employment and,
although successful in selection process, respondents declined to issue
appointment order due to criminal antecedents and criminal cases faced by
petitioner. In fact, petitioner faced following criminal cases, details of which
as given by the respondents are as under:
(i) Crime No.644/06 P.S. Ranjhi, Jabalpur under Section 325, 34 of
IPC
(ii) Crime No.29/13, under Sections 427, 294, 34 of IPC and Sections
1(1)10, 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act.
(iii) Crime No. 31/13 under Sections 294, 341,323 and 34 of IPC
(iv) Crime No.209/08, under sections 107, 116(3) of Cr.P.C.
10. On perusal of nature of allegations, it appears that in total 4
cases, one case under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 was levelled against petitioner. It is true that discretion
vest with the employer and is to be exercised objectively and employer
should not depart from realm of objectivity, however, it is equally true that
when a person faces criminal cases (the way present petitioner faced),
employer specially when person is to be appointed in an organization of
national /defence importance is required to carry out minute scrutiny.
11. Once employer, looking to nature of job and seriousness of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 21-07-2026
15:45:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53725
4 MP-4332-2026
criminal cases faced by petitioner, arrived at a conclusion, it appears that
learned CAT rightly declined to interfere in opinion expressed by employer
while declining appointment letter.
12. In Avtar Singh (supra), in para 38, guidelines are given in
following manner:
“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 aSignature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 21-07-2026
15:45:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:537255 MP-4332-2026
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 3 case of
clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt
has been given, the employer may considerSignature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 21-07-2026
15:45:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:537256 MP-4332-2026
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 asappointment of a 4 person against whom
multiple criminal cases were pending may
not be proper.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 21-07-2026
15:45:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53725
7 MP-4332-2026
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. 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 5
submitting false information as to a fact
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 21-07-2026
15:45:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:53725
8 MP-4332-2026
which was not even asked for.
38.11. Before a person is held guilty of
suppressio veri or suggestio falsi , knowledge
of the fact must be attributable to him.”
13. After considering guidance given above and applying them to
present facts situation, where one offence is in respect of Atrocities Act also,
no case for interference is made out. Impugned order stands affirmed.
14. Petition sans merit, is hereby dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK) (VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE JUDGE
DevS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 21-07-2026
15:45:36
