Employee Who Made False Declaration/ Suppressed Involvement In Criminal Case Not Entitled To Appointment/Continue In Service As A Matter Of Right: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that an employee who made a false declaration and/or suppressed the material fact of his involvement in a criminal case shall not be entitled to an appointment or to continue in service as a matter of right.

"Where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to the employer", the bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna observed.

In this case, the employee of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited had submitted a declaration during documents verification that neither criminal case is pending against him nor he has suffered any conviction by any court of law in any criminal case. His services were terminated by the employer after it found that he was convicted in a criminal case.

The employee approached the High Court challenging the termination order. The High Court relying on the judgment of Avtar Singh v. Union of India, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, allowed the writ petition and quashed and set aside the order of termination and directed reinstatement of the employee with all consequential benefits.

To allow the appeal, the Apex Court bench has referred to various earlier judgments in this regard.

One of the contentions raised by the employee was that he was granted the benefit of Section 12 of the Act 1958 which provides that a person shall not suffer disqualification attaching to the conviction. In this regard, the court said:

"Subsequently getting the benefit of Section 12 of the Act 1958 shall not be helpful to the respondent inasmuch as the question is about filing a false declaration on 14.04.2015 that neither any criminal case is pending against him nor he has been convicted by any court of law, which was much prior to the order passed by the learned Sessions Court granting the benefit of Section 12 of the Act 1958. As observed hereinabove, even in case of subsequent acquittal, the employee once made a false declaration and/or suppressed the material fact of pending criminal case shall not be entitled to an appointment as a matter of right." (Para 11)

The question is of TRUST

The court, while allowing the appeal, further observed :

The question is not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently acquitted or not. The question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of the employment, i.e., while submitting the declaration/verification and/or applying for a post made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressing material fact of having involved in a criminal case. If the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him. Then the question is of TRUST. Therefore, in such a situation, where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to the employer. At the cost of repetition, it is observed and as observed hereinabove in catena of decision such an employee cannot claim the appointment and/or continue to be in service as a matter of right. (Para 12)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment