Non-Disclosure Of Material Information Itself Could Be A Ground For Termination Of Services : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that non-disclosure of material information itself could be a ground for cancellation of employment or termination of services.

In the year 2003, Dillip Kumar Mallick was appointed under the Central Reserve Police Force ('CRPF') Group Centre, Bhubaneswar. A departmental inquiry was initiated against him on the allegations that though he was involved in a criminal case and was charge-sheeted and though the said criminal case was pending before the competent Court but, while filling up the verification roll, he suppressed/concealed the said fact. He was awarded the punishment of removal by the Disciplinary Authority. Later, partly allowing his writ petition, the Orissa High Court directed the CRPF to impose 'any lesser punishment as deemed just and proper'.

In appeal before the Supreme Court, the issue raised was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded to Mallick?

The court noted that the finding of the the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority that he is held guilty of misconduct of suppression/concealment of material information was affirmed by the High Court.

Referring to Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others: (2016) 8 SCC 471, the bench made the following observations

Non-disclosure by itself may be a ground for an employer to cancel the candidature or to terminate services

Thus, it remains beyond the pale of doubt that the cases of non-disclosure of material information and of submitting false information have been treated as being of equal gravity by this Court and it is laid down in no uncertain terms that non-disclosure by itself may be a ground for an employer to cancel the candidature or to terminate services. Even in the summation above-quoted, this Court has emphasized that information given to the employer by a candidate as to criminal case including the factors of arrest or pendency of the case, whether before or after entering into service, must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of the required information.

 Employer would not be obliged to ignore such defaults and shortcomings

In case of suppression, when the facts later come to the knowledge of employer, different courses of action may be adopted by the employer depending on the nature of fault as also the nature of default; and this Court has indicated that if the case is of trivial nature, like that of shouting slogans at a young age etc., the employer may ignore such suppression of fact or false information depending on the factors as to whether the information, if disclosed, would have rendered incumbent unfit for the post in question.. However, the aforesaid observations do not lead to the corollary that in a case of the present nature where a criminal case was indeed pending against the respondent and the facts were altogether omitted from being mentioned, the employer would be obliged to ignore such defaults and shortcomings. On the contrary, as indicated above, a non-disclosure of material information itself could be a ground for cancellation of employment or termination of services.

Taking note of the materials on record, the bench observed that he had entered the employment in CRPF in the year 2003 without disclosing the fact of pendency of criminal case against him, had continued to remain as a pending-trial accused person without the knowledge of the department, until the facts were noticed and he was subjected to departmental proceedings.

Allowing the appeal, the bench observed:

Where suppression of relevant information is not a matter of dispute, there cannot be any legal basis for the Court to interfere in the manner that the employer be directed to impose 'any lesser punishment', as directed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The submissions seeking to evoke sympathy and calling for leniency cannot lead to any relief in favour of the respondent.

Case details

Union of India vs Dillip Kumar Mallick | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 360 | CA 2754 OF 2022 | 5 April 2022

Coram: Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and MM Sundresh

Headnotes

Service Law - A non-disclosure of material information itself could be a ground for cancellation of employment or termination of services - Employer would not be obliged to ignore such defaults and shortcomings. Where suppression of relevant information is not a matter of dispute, there cannot be any legal basis for the Court to interfere - The cases of non-disclosure of material information and of submitting false information have been treated as being of equal gravity. [Referred to Avtar Singh v. Union of India  (2016) 8 SCC 471 ] (Para 13-16)

Summary - Appeal against Orissa High Court direction to impose 'any lesser punishment' to employee terminated from service for non disclosure of criminal cases -  Allowed - In a case of the present nature where a criminal case was indeed pending against the respondent and the facts were altogether omitted from being mentioned, the employer would be obliged to ignore such defaults and shortcomings.

Click here to Read/Download Order