Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 818
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hemant Gupta, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.
Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Bheem Singh Meena - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.2599 of 2022 (@ SLP(C) No.30505/2013)
Decided On : 31-03-2022
For the Petitioners: Ms. Madhavi Goradia Divan, ASG (N.P.), Ms. Alka Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv., Ms. Reena Pandey, Adv., Mr. Durga Dutt, Adv., Ms. Nidhi Khanna, Adv., Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Adv., Mr. Ayush Puri, Adv., Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Adv.
For Respondents: Ms. Asha Jain Madan, AOR, Mr. Mukesh Jain, Adv.
The main legal point established is that providing false information or suppressing material facts during the initial stage of employment disentitles the candidate for appointment, especially in roles where truthfulness and credibility are crucial.
Headnote:
Suppression of Information - Employment - Section 499/93, 147, 332, 353, 427 & 149 IPC - The court discussed the importance of providing true information regarding criminal prosecution, arrest, or pendency of a criminal case for employment. It emphasized that an employee's credibility and trustworthiness are crucial, and the employer has the right to not continue the service of an employee who has made false statements or suppressed material facts during the initial stage of employment.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, offered a teaching position, concealed information about a criminal case against him, leading to his removal from service. He challenged the removal before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was initially dismissed but later allowed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's suppression of information about the criminal case warranted his removal from service, emphasizing the importance of truthfulness and credibility, especially for a teacher responsible for shaping young students' careers.
Issues: The key issue was whether the respondent's suppression of information about a criminal case justified his removal from service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that providing false information or suppressing material facts during the initial stage of employment disentitles the candidate for appointment, especially in roles where truthfulness and credibility are paramount.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders passed by the High Court and upholding the order of removal from service.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated 21.12.2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi whereby the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi dated 19.11.2009 and the order in review dated 10.03.2010 were set aside.
3. The respondent was offered the post of trained graduate teacher of mathematics after the test conducted by Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board on 17.11.1999. The respondent joined on 08.12.1999. After joining, an attestation form was given for verification of antecedents. Such attestation form was filled up on 13.12.1999. In such attestation form, he has answered the question ‘have you ever been prosecuted’ in negative. The respondent again filled up the antecedent form on 24.12.2005. The respondent again denied that he was never prosecuted.
4. However, during verification, it was found that a case under Section 499/93, 147, 332, 353, 427 & and 149 IPC was registered. A charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Karauli, Rajasthan on 30.04.1994. The respondent was served a charge memo on 21.06.2006 calling upon the respondent to explain why he had concealed the fact regarding the case registered against him and of the charge-sheet dated 30.04.1994.
5. In reply to the charge-memo, the respondent stated that he forgot about the incident after acquittal and the column was filled up by oversight and that he was residing in Delhi since July, 1996 and had no idea about the status of the case after 1996. An order of removal from service was passed on 19.06.2008 after considering the reply filed. He filed an appeal against the order of removal which was dismissed on 01.06.2009.
6. Such order of removal was challenged by the respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal by an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Such application was dismissed but the High Court allowed the writ petition filed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants refers to a three Judge Bench judgment of this Court reported as (2016) 8 SCC 471, titled as ‘Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.’ wherein this Court considered the question of suppression of information or submitting false information in the verification form as to the question of having been criminally prosecuted, arrested or as to pendency of a criminal case. The whole idea of verification of character and antecedents is that the person suitable for the post in question is appointed. It is one of the important criteria which is necessary to be fulfilled before appointment is made. An incumbent should not have antecedents of such a nature which may adjudge him unsuitable for the post. This Court in Avtar Singh held as under:-
“38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus:
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………”
8. The learned counsel for appellants also relied upon recent judgment of this Court reported as (2021) 10 SCC 136, titled as ‘Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & Anr. Vs. Anil Kanwariya’ wherein this Court in para 14 held as under:
“14. The issue/question may be considered from another angle, from the employer’s point of view. The question is not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently acquitted or not. The question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of the employment, i.e., while submitting the declaration/verification and/or applying for a post made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressi
