Non-Disclosure Of Material Information By Probationer Sufficient Ground For Termination Without Formal Enquiry: Jammu & Kashmir High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has recently ruled that non-disclosure of material information or submission of false information by a government employee, especially in a belt force like the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), can be sufficient ground for termination without the need for a formal enquiry, if the employee is on probation.“…Even if the employer comes to know about...
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has recently ruled that non-disclosure of material information or submission of false information by a government employee, especially in a belt force like the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), can be sufficient ground for termination without the need for a formal enquiry, if the employee is on probation.
“…Even if the employer comes to know about the adverse antecedents of an employee during probation period, it shall be open to the employer to exercise his powers under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1965 and discharge the probationer without assigning any reason”, Justice Sanjay Dhar emphasised.
The case in question revolved around a CRPF Constable, terminated from service by the appointing authority under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The termination was based on the employee's alleged involvement in a criminal case that came to light during his probation period.
Assailing his termination, the petitioner contended that he was not aware of the pendency of the criminal case at the time of his appointment and argued that he did not conceal any information intentionally. On the other hand, the respondents claimed that the petitioner deliberately concealed the criminal case and secured his appointment fraudulently.
Justice Dhar, after considering the arguments from both sides, acknowledged that a probationer can be discharged from service without holding an inquiry and without assigning any reason. However, the court emphasized that the employer must act reasonably and consider the nature of information withheld or falsely provided by the employee.
“...The appointing authority has to take into account the nature of information that has been withheld by the employee and the nature of false information that has been furnished by him. It has also to take into account the fact whether the exoneration of the employee from the criminal case that was pending against him, either before his appointment or during his service, is on account of technical grounds or is an honourable acquittal/discharge. All these factors will have to be weighed by the appointing authority before exercising its powers under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1965”, the bench observed.
Court referred to previous rulings to support its decision, including the case of Daya Shankar Yadav vs. Union of India 2010, where it was established that non-disclosure of material information, even if the candidate was ultimately acquitted in the criminal case, can lead to termination.
In this particular case, the court found that the petitioner's form at the time of appointment did not include a column requiring disclosure of involvement in any criminal case and as a result, the court concluded that it could not be a case of non-disclosure of information.
However, the court also acknowledged that the petitioner was acquitted of the charges after the termination order was passed and held that the respondents could still discharge the petitioner if they find that the acquittal was on technical grounds or not an honorable one.
“Even if it is assumed that no false information was made by the petitioner, still then it was open to the respondents to discharge him from service once they came to know about his involvement in a heinous offence of murder, which certainly can be considered as an impediment in continuance of the petitioner in a belt force”, the bench maintained.
Taking note of the claim of the respondents that the petitioner did not make any representation after receiving the impugned notice of termination the court ordered that the petitioner be given an opportunity to make a representation before the appointing authority, regarding the termination order. The authority must consider all relevant facts, including the petitioner's acquittal and the nature of the criminal case, before passing a new order on the representation.
Accordingly, the bench upheld the legality of the impugned order and disposed of the petition with liberty to make a representation before respondent No. 4 for a review. The respondent is expected to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law within one month, the bench concluded.
Case Title: Bijay Oraon Vs Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 206