Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DINESH MAHESHWARI, M.M.SUNDRESH, JJ.
Union Of India & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Dilip Kumar Mallick - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2754 of 2022(Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 26402 of 2019)
Decided on : 05-04-2022
(A) Service Law – Removal – Concealment of fact regarding involvement in criminal case – Non-disclosure by itself may be a ground for an employer to cancel candidature or to terminate services – Information given to employer by a candidate as to criminal case including factors of arrest or pendency of case, whether before or after entering into service, must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information – In case of suppression, when facts later come to knowledge of employer, different courses of action may be adopted by employer depending on nature of fault as also nature of default – If case is of trivial nature, like that of shouting slogans at a young age etc., employer may ignore such suppression of fact or false information depending on factors as to whether information, if disclosed, would have rendered incumbent unfit for post in question. (Paras 13 and 14)
(B) Service Law – Removal – From Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) for concealment of fact regarding involvement in criminal case – In a case of present nature where a criminal case was indeed pending against respondent and facts were altogether omitted from being mentioned, employer would not be obliged to ignore such defaults and shortcomings – Non-disclosure of material information itself could be a ground for cancellation of employment or termination of services – Where suppression of relevant information is not a matter of dispute, there cannot be any legal basis for Court to interfere in the manner that employer be directed to impose any lesser punishment, as directed by Division Bench of High Court – Submissions seeking to evoke sympathy and calling for leniency cannot lead to any relief in favour of respondent – Respondent, who entered employment in CRPF in year 2003 without disclosing fact of pendency of criminal case against him, had continued to remain as a pending-trial accused person without knowledge of department, until facts were noticed and he was subjected to departmental proceedings – Impugned order set aside. (Paras 14.1, 15, 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Challenge herein is to the judgment and order dated 25.03.2019 in Writ Appeal No. 223 of 2018, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, in partial disapproval of the order dated 10.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition(C) No. 24085 of 2018, interfered with the punishment of removal from service, as awarded to respondent; and directed the present appellants to impose ‘any lesser punishment as deemed just and proper’.
Findings of Court:
Questioned part of the impugned order where Division Bench interfered with the quantum of punishment, is set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed without any order as to costs.
Result : Appeal allowed.
ORDER :
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
Leave granted.
2. The challenge herein is to the judgment and order dated 25.03.2019 in Writ Appeal No. 223 of 2018, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, in partial disapproval of the order dated 10.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition(C) No. 24085 of 2018, interfered with the punishment of removal from service, as awarded to the respondent; and directed the present appellants to impose ‘any lesser punishment as deemed just and proper’.
3. The only question for consideration in this appeal is, as to whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded to the respondent? The background aspects may be noticed to the extent relevant for the present purpose.
4. In the year 2003, the respondent was appointed under the Central Reserve Police Force (‘CRPF’) Group Centre, Bhubaneswar. While continuing in service, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him on the allegations that though he was involved in Kendrapara Police Station Case No. 349 dated 26.09.2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294, 337, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was charge-sheeted for the said offences on 01.12.2001; and though the said criminal case was pending before the competent Court but, while filling up the verification roll, he suppressed/concealed the said fact and such an act was prejudicial to the discipline of CRPF. The respondent participated in the inquiry and ultimately, he was awarded the punishment of removal by the Disciplinary Authority. The appeal taken by the respondent was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 31.07.2009.
5. However, on 02.02.2012, a writ petition filed by the respondent bearing No. 14945 of 2009 was allowed by the High Court to the extent that the Appellate Authority was directed to reconsider the appeal within two months in light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar: (2011) 4 SCC 644. The Appellate Authority, thereafter, passed a fresh order on 22.08.2012, again dismissing the appeal and declining to interfere with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. The respondent again approached the High Court by way of the writ petition leading to the present appeal, being W.P.(C) No. 24085 of 2012.
6. The plea taken by the present respondent before the learned Single Judge in this writ petition was that, he had not suppressed any information so as to be held guilty in disciplinary proceedings. In respect of the particular column in the verification roll, it was submitted, he had neither mentioned ‘Yes’ nor mentioned ‘No’ as regards the criminal case. It was also asserted that he was neither arrested nor remanded to judicial custody; and the matter having been settled between the parties in the village, he did not know about the pendency of the case and hence, did not state any information in that regard in the relevant column of the verification roll. The present appellants opposed the writ petition with the submissions that the respondent left the relevant column blank, though the criminal case was pending against him and such an act was that of concealment/suppression of material facts.
6.1. The learned Single Judge did not agree with the contentions of the present respondent (writ petitioner) and on 10.04.2018, dismissed the writ petition while concluding that he had concealed the facts about his involvement in the criminal case.
7. The intra-court appeal against the order so passed by the learned Single Judge was considered and decided by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned order dated 25.03.2019. The Division Bench of the High Court examined all the contentions raised before it with reference to several decisions of this Court and found no reason to interfere with the basic findings of the learned Single Judge as regards guilt/delinquency of the a
(1) Removal from service – Non-disclosure by itself may be a ground for employer to cancel candidature or to terminate services.(2) Termination of service – Where suppression of relevant information ....
An employee who suppresses material information or gives false information cannot claim a right to continue in service.
Appointment – Even in a case where information regarding pending criminal case is truthfully furnished and on acquittal therein, employer has discretion to consider antecedents while issuing letter o....
Suppression of material facts regarding pending criminal cases has a clear bearing on the character, conduct, and antecedents of the employee, and can lead to termination of services.
The judgment established the importance of considering the impact of suppression of information on the suitability for a job, the need for adherence to natural justice principles in dismissal cases, ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
