Rajasthan High Court Upholds Termination Of Employee Who Obtained Compassionate Appointment By Concealing Criminal Cases Pending Against Him

The court observed that the petitioner failed to give due details and therefore, violated Clause-2(n) of the appointment letter and also suppressed the information. The court opined that the tribunal has duly considered said violations and suppression on the part of the petitioner.

Essentially, the petitioner was given appointment on the post of LDC on compassionate grounds on 24.12.2012. As per him, under Clause-13 of the Attestation form, he had disclosed all information, except Clause-13(J), wherein on account of paucity of space, he was not able to give details of criminal cases pending against him. On account of said concealment, respondents issued show cause notice which reflected that two criminal cases were pending against the petitioner. The petitioner's representation was also rejected and termination order was passed. Later, CAT, Jaipur Bench upheld the termination order holding that it was not against the Rules, that there is no allegation of mala-fides and natural justice was adhered to by the respondent. Being aggrieved against the same, present petition was filed.

Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Sameer Jain, while dismissing the petition and refusing to interfere with the order of CAT, observed,

"In the prescribed form in Clause-13, details were specifically asked for. Petitioner failed to give due details and therefore, violated Clause-2(n) of the appointment letter and also suppressed the information. The learned tribunal has duly considered said violations and suppression on the part of the petitioner. Further, learned tribunal has also considered Apex Court judgment titled as Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471.."

Notably, in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471 the Apex Court had observed, "Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information".

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the CAT's order is per se illegal in view of the settled position of law. He submitted that the petitioner in question was merely tenth pass and had disclosed necessary details as required under clause-13 of the form. He informed that it was only because of paucity of space that due details only under clause-13(J) were not furnished. There was no wilful suppression of information, in fact it was a bonafide mistake because of lack of space, added the court.

The petitioner's counsel placed reliance on Pawan Kumar v. Union of India [2022 LiveLaw SC 441], whereby the Supreme Court had observed that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service.

Adv. Abhishek B. Sharma appeared for the petitioner.

Case Title: Amit Kumar Sharma v. Union Of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 209

Click Here To Download Order