2016 Supreme(SC) 578

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjan Gogoi, Arun Mishra, Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.
Avtar Singh – Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Special Leave Petitioin [C] No. 20525 of 2011 [With SLP [C] Nos. 4757 of 2014 and 24320 of 2014]
Decided On : 21-07-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
Non-disclosure of conviction in a case of trivial nature such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.
Non-disclosure of conviction in not trivial cases may result in cancellation of candidature or termination of service.
In case of not honourable acquittal in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.
Even if the candidate has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint him.
In case of truthful disclosure of a pending case appointment can be made subject to outcome of the case.
Even if a criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.
For determining suppression or false information, attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.
Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.

Headnote:(a) Service law – Appointment – Verification of antecedents – Attestation Form – Suppression of material information – An incumbent should not have antecedents of such a nature which may adjudge him unsuitable for the post – Mere involvement in some petty kind of case would not render a person unsuitable for the job – After entry into Government service, a person has to abide by the service rules in conformity with the Constitution – Cancelling offer of appointment due to non-disclosure of conviction under the Defence of India Rules for having shouted slogans on one occasion was held illegal – The discretionary power to terminate services of the employee in terms of appointment letter cannot be used arbitrarily – Various aspects have to be considered – It has to be guided on certain principles for which purpose verification is sought – Imperative that query in verification form has to be very clear, specific and unambiguous – Approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives – Appointing authority duty bound to assess suitability of candidate with reference to nature of suppression and nature of the criminal case. (Para 3, 4, 6, 9, 16, 18, 19, 20)

       (1983) 2 SCC 145; (1988) Supp SCC 795; (1996) 11 SCC 605; (1999) 1 SCC 246; (2003) 3 SCC 437; (2005) 2 SCC 746; (2008) 1 SCC 660; (2008) 11 SCC 314; (2010) 14 SCC 103; (2011) 10 SCC 184; (2011) 4 SCC 644; (2011) 14 SCC 709 – Relied upon

       (2012) 8 SCC 748; 341 US 716; (2010) 2 SCC 169; (1970) 2 QB 114 – Referred

       (1995) Supp 4 SCC 100 – Distinguished

       (b) Service law – Verification of antecedents – Attestation Form – Suppression/omission of information – It has to be seen whether the information is material – Nature of offence, background facts, grounds of conviction or acquittal and its impact on service/performance of incumbent has to be assessed – It has to be seen whether despite the information, incumbent is fit for employment and whether the suppression/omission if fit to be condoned – Petty offence committed at young age not involving moral turpitude, cheating, misappropriation etc., not a serious or heinous offence – Acquittal of the accused – Verification form not disclosing such information – Employer may ignore lapse of suppression or submitting false information in appropriate cases on due consideration of various aspects – However, same standard cannot be applied to each and every post – Ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects. (Para 22, 23, 26)

       (c) Service law – Verification of antecedents – Attestation Form – Non-disclosure of pendency of criminal trial – Employer would be justified in not appointing such an incumbent or in terminating the services. (Para 24)

       (d) Service law – Verification of antecedents – Attestation Form – Employment obtained on basis of forged documents – Employee liable to be terminated without enquiry – If, however, employee is confirmed in the meantime, he/she can still be terminated, but after holding enquiry. (Para 25)

       Facts of the case:

       The order referring the matter to larger Bench, while pointing out cleavage of opinion among different Benches, had expressed the opinion that in case an appointment order has been secured fraudulently, the appointment is voidable at the option of the employer and the employee cannot get any equity in his favour and no estoppel is created against the employer only by the fact that the employee has continued in service for a number of years. It has been further observed that if appointment is secured on forged documents, it would amount to misrepresentation and fraud. The employer has a right to terminate the services on suppression of important information or giving false information, having regard to nature of employment. Verification of character and antecedents is important if the employer has found an incumbent to be undesirable for appointment to a disciplined force. The Court thus further opined that suppression of material information necessary for verification of character/antecedents will have a clear bearing on character and antecedents of a candidate in relation to his continuity in service and such a person cannot claim a right for appointment or continuity in service. The Bench was of the view that in uniformed service, suppression or false information can be viewed seriously as it requires higher level of integrity and the employer is supposed to find out before an appointment is made that criminal case has come to an end and pendency of a case would serve as a bar for appointment and in such cases of suppression whether different yardsticks can be applied as noted in the various decisions of this Court. The question which has been referred to arises frequently and there are catena of decisions taking one view or the other on the facts of the case.

       Result: Reference answered.