Employee Can't Be Terminated For Non-Disclosure Of FIR That He Was Not Aware Of: Allahabad High Court Reiterates

Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, Justice Neeraj Tiwari of the Allahabad High Court has held that a government employee cannot be removed from service for not disclosing that an F.I.R. was filed against them, if they themselves were not aware of the fact.

“This Court is also of the same view that in case at the time of filing of affidavit before submission of joining, candidate is having no knowledge of pendency of any criminal case ad at any point of time, case is found registered against him, he cannot be held guilty for concealment of fact, no action for termination or dismissal of service can be taken against him”, held Justice Neeraj Tiwari.

Petitioner joined as a Jail Warden, District Jail, Pratapgarh on 13.09.2021. However, on 21.07.2022, a show-cause notice was issued to him seeking explanation for non-disclosure of an F.I.R. against him under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, during the selection stage.

In response, the petitioner submitted that he was unaware of such an F.I.R. being filed in the first place. Nevertheless, ignoring he reply given by the petitioner, his services were terminated and aggrieved, he filed the present writ petition before the High Court.

Petitioner argued that he had no knowledge about the F.I.R. being filed against him and thus there was no reason for him to disclose such information prior to joining the service. He also contended that the final report in this regard was accepted by the Court by order dated 02.11.2022.

Justice Tiwari observed that the contentions advanced by the petitioner remained undisputed by the respondents. It was observed that the respondents in their counter-affidavit, accepted the facts put forth by the petitioner. Perusing the final report submitted in the favour of the petitioner and the order passed on 02.11.2022, the Court held that it was undisputed that a charge sheet had not been filed against the petitioner.

“From perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs of the writ petition as well as paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, it is absolutely clear that petitioner has taken specific stand that he was having no knowledge about the pendency of criminal proceedings against him and that has not been denied in the counter affidavit rather accepted”, held the Court.

Further, the Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Milan Kushwaha vs. State of U.P. and others to hold that before an individual was held guilty of suppression of fact, they must have knowledge of the fact in question.

The Court held that the respondents had failed to prove that he was guilty of filing a false affidavit. It quashed the termination order passed against the petitioner and directed that the he be reinstated in service and be awarded all consequential benefits.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.

Case Title: Saurabh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 6 Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 18692 of 2022]

Click Here To Read/Download Order