Mere Suppression Of Information About Criminal Does Not Mean That Employer Can Arbitrarily Terminate Employee From Service: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court 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.

"The person who has suppressed the material information or has made false declaration indeed has no unfettered right of seeking appointment or continuity in service, but at least has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to be judiciously exercised by the competent authority in a reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts of the case on hand", the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna observed.

In this case, the appellant was selected to the post of Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF). While he was undergoing training, he was discharged from service on the ground that he did not disclose that an FIR under Sections 148/149/323/506/356 IPC was registered against him and he was prosecuted in the said case. It was found that there was suppression of information/false declaration in the verification form. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, and therefore he approached the Apex Court.

The Apex Court bench noted that the appellant was honourably acquitted in the said criminal case. "The criminal complaint/FIR in the present case was registered post submission of the application form. We have also taken into account the nature of the allegations made in the criminal case and that the matter was of trivial nature not involving moral turpitude. Further, the proceedings had ended in a clean acquittal.", the court noted.

Referring to the judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others, the court made the following observations

Right not to be dealt with arbitrarily

This cannot be disputed that the candidate who intends to participate in the selection process is always required to furnish correct information relating to his character and antecedents in the verification/attestation form before and after induction into service. It is also equally true that the person who has suppressed the material information or has made false declaration indeed has no unfettered right of seeking appointment or continuity in service, but at least has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to be judiciously exercised by the competent authority in a reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts of the case on hand. It goes without saying that the yardstick/standard which has to be applied with regard to adjudging suitability of the incumbent always depends upon the nature of post, nature of duties, effect of suppression over suitability to be considered by the authority on due diligence of various aspects but no hard and fast rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard.

Employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen.

Mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What being noticed by this Court is 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.

The Union Government relied on the 2021 judgment on the Supreme Court in the case Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited vs. Anil Kanwariya which held that employee who suppressed information about criminal case is not entitled to continue in service. However, the bench distinguished that judgment by saying that it was a case where the respondent employee before submitting application pursuant to the advertisement inviting applications was convicted by the competent Court of jurisdiction and this fact was not disclosed by him while filling his application form.

Observing thus, the bench directed to reinstate the appellant in service on the post of Constable.

Case details

Pawan Kumar vs Union of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 441 | CA 3574 OF 2022 | 2 May 2022

Coram: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna

Headnotes

Service Law - Mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service - Mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen - The effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service - The person who has suppressed the material information or has made false declaration indeed has no unfettered right of seeking appointment or continuity in service, but at least has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to be judiciously exercised by the competent authority in a reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts of the case on hand. [Referred to Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471 ] (Para 11-13)