SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(SC) 836

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, K.M. Joseph, JJ.
State Of Odisha & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Gobinda Behera - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 893 of 2020
Decided On : 31-01-2020

Advocates appeared:
Shibashish Misra, Advocate, S. Debabrata Reddy, Advocate, Chandan Kumar Mandal, Advocate, Azim H Laskar, Advocate, Sachin Das, Advocate, Adtiya Kumar Archiya, Advocate, Sampa Sengupta Ray, Advocate, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Advocate

Point of Law: Service matter - Order of discharge from service - Being involved in criminal case, respondent suppressed these facts from authorities while applying for post of a Constable in State Police

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 294/323/324/326/336/337/427/379/506/34 - Orissa Police Rules - Rule 673 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Employment - Post of a Constable - Appointment - Verification - Criminal Intimidation - Authorities were directed to consider case of respondent for reinstatement in his former post and to grant consequential service and financial benefits - First Information Report in criminal case was lodged. Respondent surrendered before JMFC and was released on bail in view of an order which had been passed by High Court in Bail Application. The respondent applied for post of a Constable thereafter and was appointed. Respondent moved High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for quashing criminal proceedings. High Court, by its order quashed criminal proceedings on basis of a compromise between parties. This was after order of discharge from service.

Finding of the court:

Employer can legitimately conclude that a person who has suppressed material facts does not deserve to be in its employment - It is evident that, despite being involved in the criminal case, the respondent suppressed these facts from the authorities while applying for the post of a Constable in the State Police. The criminal case was quashed in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC on the basis of a compromise between the parties much after the order of discharge. Hence, the view which has been taken by the High Court is palpably unsustainable. The Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application - Set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court.

Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. - Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal arises from a judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa dated 29 March 2018.

4. The respondent applied for appointment to the post of a Constable in the Odisha State Police in the 6th IR Batallion, Khurda on 29 October 2011. In response to a query, the respondent specifically stated in his application that he was not involved in any criminal case. He was appointed on 14 December 2011. A verification roll was provided to him, which was to be filled up in terms of Rule 673 of the Orissa Police Rules. On 22 May 2012, the Superintendent of Police, Puri informed the Commandant that during the course of the verification of the character and antecedents of the respondent, it was found that he was involved in Balanga PS Case No 46 of 2009 under Sections 294/323/324/326/336/337/427/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 ("IPC") . On 6 July 2012, the respondent was called upon to explain why he had submitted a false statement in the verification roll and in the application for appointment to the post of Constable. The respondent was discharged from service on 26 July 2012, upon which he filed a proceeding before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal ("Tribunal") . The Tribunal rejected the Original Application ("OA") on the ground that the respondent had furnished a false declaration. This decision of the Tribunal was reversed by the High Court, by its impugned judgment. The High Court did so on the basis of a judgment of this Court in Avtar Singh v Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 (Avtar Singh). The High Court held that the Tribunal had not taken note of the fact that the criminal proceeding had already been quashed and that the suppression in the circumstances was of a technical and trivial nature. The authorities were directed to consider the case of the respondent for reinstatement in his former post and to grant consequential service and financial benefits.

5. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the respondent, the factual position, which has emerged before the Court, is that the First Information Report in the criminal case was lodged on 16 June 2009. The respondent surrendered before the JMFC on 3 August 2009 and was released on bail in view of an order dated 28 July 2009 which had been passed by the High Court in Bail Application 10246 of 2009. The respondent applied for the post of a Constable thereafter on 29 October 2011 and was appointed on 14 December 2011. The respondent moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ("CrPC") for quashing the criminal proceedings. The High Court, by its order dated 22 November 2013, quashed the criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise between the parties. This was after the order of discharge from service on 26 July 2012.

6. The position in law has been considered by this Court in a decision of a three-Judge Bench in Avtar Singh. The summary of the conclusions is contained in the following extract:

"38.1. 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.

38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.

38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top