Employee Can Be Terminated For Suppression Or False Information Regarding Suitability: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that an employee can be terminated from service if it is found that he had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post.

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, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala observed.

The court also added that the acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post and 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.

Satish Chandra Yadav was serving as a Constable (General Duty) with the CRPF. He was terminated from service after it was found that he had suppressed the fact that a criminal case had been registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 324, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. As the Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal, he approached the Apex Court.

Before the Apex Court bench, Advocate Jyoti Dutt Sharma, who appeared for the appellant- Yadav , contended that the the prosecution against him was of a very trivial nature and it did not involve any moral turpitude. The suppression, if at all believed, by itself, cannot be a ground to deny public employment, it was contended. On the other hand, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Madhavi Divan, who appeared for the respondent, contended that the appellant is guilty of "suppression" of material facts which, by itself, was sufficient to terminate his services.

In the judgment, the bench referred to various decisions including Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : on the question of suppression of information or submitting false information in the verification Form. The court noted that the principles of law laid therein governing the subject are bit inconsistent and that even after, the larger Bench decision in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) different courts have enunciated different principles. The court therefore proceeded to shortlist the broad principles of law which should be made applicable to the litigations of the present nature:

a) Each case should be scrutinised 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.

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 generalisations 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?

The court also added that the wide discretionary power with which it is invested under Article 136 is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only.

We are of the opinion that it was a deliberate attempt on the part of the appellant Satish Chandra Yadav to withhold the relevant information and it is this omission which has led to the termination of his service during the probation period, the bench said while dismissing the appeal.

Case details

Satish Chandra Yadav vs Union of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 798 | SLP(C) 20860 of 2019 | 26 September 2022 | Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala

Public Employment - Suppression of criminal proceedings - Principles to be applied - a) Each case should be scrutinised 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. 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. d) The generalisations 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? (Para 69)

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 136 - Special Leave to appeal - Unless it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist; that substantial and grave injustice have been done and the case and question present features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against, this Court would not exercise its overriding powers under Article 136(1) of the Constitution. The wide discretionary power with which this Court is invested under Article 136 is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only. (Para 75)

Administrative Law - Doctrine of "unreasonableness" - 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. (Para 78)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment