MIDHUN Vs. HINDUSTAN LATEX LIMITED (HLL)LIFECARE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A verification report intended to ascertain the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, certified that petitioner was "not suitable for employment". The said verification report, issued on behalf of a District Police Chief, to the petitioner's employer, resulting in initiation of proceedings to terminate the employment of the petitioner is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be employed at the HLL Life Care Ltd., which is stated to be a Government of India enterprise. According to the petitioner, on 21/8/2025, while he was allegedly riding a motorcycle, he met with an accident by colliding with another vehicle. A crime was registered as FIR No.1069/2025 with the Peroorkada Police Station, alleging offenses punishable under Ss. 281, 125(a) and 125(b) of Bharthiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023. The rider of the motor vehicle that collided with the petitioner's vehicle died after the accident. According to the petitioner, the investigation into the said crime has been completed and the final report has also been filed before the Magistrate's Court. In the meanwhile a claim petition has also been preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased in the said accident, as OP(MV) No. 1100 of 2025 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara seeking compensation.

(3.) In the meantime, the petitioner who was undergoing training with the first respondent was directed to submit an attestation form for verification of his character and antecedents by his employer which was duly submitted. The details of the criminal case pending against the petitioner was also submitted to the verifying authority. After verifying the details of the petitioner, the third respondent issued Ext.P7 verification report dtd. 8/5/2026, specifying that the petitioner is "not suitable for appointment". Reference was made in the report to Crime No.1069/2025 of Peroorkada Police Station. According to the petitioner, based upon the said verification report, his employer has issued Ext.P8 show cause notice, calling upon him to show cause as to why his appointment should not be cancelled due to the adverse police report. Thus, the petitioner is compelled to challenge the verification report issued by the third respondent.