Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Union of India and Others – Appellants
Versus
Shishu Pal @ Shiv Pal – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7933 of 2024 Arising out of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 25631 of 2019
Decided On : 23-07-2024
Service Law – Termination – Direction for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits and 50% back wages – Purpose of seeking relevant information with respect to antecedents of a candidate/employee is to enable employer to ascertain suitability of candidate/employee for subject post – Respondent was required to furnish all relevant factual information as required in Verification Roll issued by CRPF – Respondent had duly participated in departmental inquiry from beginning to end, statements of all prosecution witnesses were recorded in his presence and respondent was also afforded opportunity to cross-examine witnesses – He was duly furnished copies of statements of all prosecution witnesses and was permitted to lead evidence in his defence, which he did – It was not a case of clean acquittal but a case of paucity of evidence that led to acquittal of respondent and other co-accused in criminal case – Respondent had complete knowledge of registration of FIR and pendency of criminal cases – Despite that, he had wilfully withheld material information from appellants while filling up Verification Roll – Appellants have exercised their discretion as employers in a reasonable manner – Impugned Judgments set aside and order passed by Disciplinary Authority and endorsed by Appellate Authority restored and upheld. (Paras 15, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 27 and 28)
Facts of the case:
Appellants-Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, and others have preferred present appeal against judgment and order dated 7th February, 2019 passed by Division Bench of High Court of Gauhati in a writ appeal, [Writ Appeal No.248 of 2018] upholding the order dated 27th March, 2018 passed by Single Judge in a writ petition, setting aside order of termination of services of respondent by Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 24th June, 2014 duly upheld by Appellate Authority on 23rd September, 2014. Resultantly, appellants were directed to reinstate respondent in service with all consequential benefits and 50% back-wages. However, liberty was granted to appellants to impose a minor punishment on respondent instead of terminating his services.
Question that arises for consideration in instant case is whether appellants were justified in terminating services of respondent on post of Constable (GD) in CRPF after conducting a departmental inquiry against him on receiving information that he had deliberately failed to reveal in his Verification Roll that two criminal cases were pending against him.
Findings of Court:
Respondent does not deserve any latitude as it has been established beyond doubt that he was all along aware of the FIR registered against him and ensuing criminal cases. Not just that, respondent failed to disclose that he had remained in judicial custody and on moving an application, was released on bail by the trial Court along with other co-accused.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
Termination and Subsequent Acquittal: Even if an employee is later acquitted in a criminal case, this does not automatically entitle them to reinstatement as a matter of right if they furnished false information or suppressed material facts related to pending criminal cases at the time of appointment or verification (!) .
Discretion of Employer: The employer's discretion to terminate or retain an employee who has suppressed material facts must be exercised reasonably, considering the nature of the post and the seriousness of the misconduct. Higher standards of integrity are expected in law enforcement or sensitive services (!) (!) .
Material Facts and Verification Process: The purpose of verifying antecedents is to assess the suitability of the candidate or employee. Suppression of material facts, especially involving criminal cases, can undermine the trustworthiness required for certain positions. The verification process involves specific, clear questions about criminal involvement, and false or incomplete disclosures can justify termination (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Knowledge of Pending Cases: If an employee was aware of a criminal case or had been in judicial custody before filling out the verification form, failure to disclose this information constitutes deliberate suppression, which can lead to termination regardless of the case's eventual outcome (!) .
Nature of the Crime and Discretion: The severity and nature of the criminal case influence the employer’s decision. Suppression or false declaration in cases involving serious or heinous offenses, or multiple pending cases, typically warrants termination. Conversely, trivial or technical cases, especially if the employee is acquitted or the case is of minor importance, may be condoned or overlooked (!) (!) (!) .
Fair and Proper Inquiry: The process of departmental inquiry must be fair, providing the employee with an opportunity to participate, cross-examine witnesses, and present evidence. The findings of such inquiries are crucial in determining misconduct (!) (!) .
Role of Acquittal: An acquittal based on a lack of evidence or technical reasons does not necessarily negate the misconduct of suppression or false declaration. The key issue remains whether the employee knowingly withheld material facts during verification (!) (!) .
Higher Standards for Sensitive Posts: For positions involving law enforcement or security, the standards of integrity and truthfulness are more stringent. Any falsehood or suppression, especially involving criminal involvement, can justify termination even if the employee later acquitted in court (!) (!) .
Legal Principles on False Declaration and Suppression: The law emphasizes that an employee or candidate must provide truthful information during verification. Suppression of material facts, especially involving criminal proceedings, is a serious misconduct that can justify dismissal or cancellation of appointment (!) (!) (!) .
Final Decision and Reasonableness: The courts recognize the employer’s right to exercise discretion based on the facts, nature of the misconduct, and the importance of integrity in the position. Such decisions are upheld if made reasonably and following a fair process (!) .
In summary, the case underscores that suppression or false declaration regarding criminal cases at the time of appointment can lead to termination, regardless of subsequent acquittal, especially in sensitive roles requiring high integrity. The employer’s decision to terminate is justified when based on a fair inquiry and consideration of the seriousness of the misconduct.
JUDGMENT :
Hima Kohli, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants – Director General, Central Reserve Police Force,1[For short ‘the CRPF’] and others have preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 7th February, 2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gauhati in a writ appeal,2[Writ Appeal No.248 of 2018] upholding the order dated 27th March, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition,3[WP(C) No. 5986/2014] setting aside the order of termination of services of the respondent by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 24th June, 2014 duly upheld by the Appellate Authority on 23rd September, 2014. Resultantly, the appellants were directed to reinstate the respondent in service with all consequential benefits and 50% back-wages. However, liberty was granted to the appellants to impose a minor punishment on the respondent instead of terminating his services. The appeal preferred by the appellants against the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been dismissed by the Division Bench that was of the opinion that as on 30th November, 2011, when the respondent was issued an appointment order and he had filled up the Verification Roll, no summons had been issued against him in a criminal case registered on 4th September, 2011 nor was he aware of the pendency of the said proceedings and therefore, there was no question of his having deliberately withheld any material information regarding his antecedents from his employer. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
Factual Matrix
3. The respondent was appointed on the post of a Constable (GD) in the CRPF and inducted in Group Centre, CRPF, Lucknow. On completion of his basic training, he reported to 149 Battalion. At the time of his recruitment on 17th November, 2011, the respondent submitted his character certificate and antecedent certificate, issued by the District Magistrate, District Mainpuri (Uttar Pradesh).
4. As a part of completion of requisite formalities related to recruitment, Group Centre, Lucknow directed all employees including the respondent herein to fill up the Verification Roll. The said Verification Roll stated that if it was found during the service period that the employee had given incorrect details in the verification letter or concealed any correct information, his services could be terminated. Column 12 of the Verification Roll specifically directed the employees to state in clear terms whether he had ever been arrested or prosecuted or whether any case was pending against him in any Court of law at the time of filling up the form. The answer to a series of questions on the same lines was required to be given in a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ format while again cautioning the employee that furnishing of any false information or suppression of any factual information would be a disqualification and likely to render the employee unfit for employment under the government. A warning was also issued that if any false information was furnished or there was suppression of any factual information that came to the notice of the employer during the course of service of a person, his services would be liable to be terminated.
5. The respondent filled up the Verification Roll and gave a reply in the negative in response to all the questions posed in column 12 of the form. Thereafter, verification of the character and antecedents of the respondent was undertaken by the appellants who approached the District Magistrate, Mainpuri, U.P. vide letter dated 19th December, 2011. A reply was received on 21st March, 2012 stating inter alia that no adverse remarks were found against the respondent which could disqualify him from service in the CRPF.
6. Subsequently, a letter dated 29th December, 2012 was received in the office of the appellant No. 3 - Commandant, 149 Battalion stating inter alia that the respondent had concealed information regarding some cases registered against him on the basis of a First Info
Termination – Even where there was a subsequent acquittal, an employee cannot claim appointment as a matter of right having furnished false information or having indulged in suppression of material f....
An employee who suppresses material information or gives false information cannot claim a right to continue in service.
Suppressing minor criminal information does not automatically disqualify candidates for government service; context and fairness must guide the decision-making process.
Appointment obtained by suppressing material fact and filing false declaration – Choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to employer. Such an employ....
Trivial offenses post-acquittal do not automatically render a candidate unfit for employment, allowing discretion in public employment decisions.
Suppression of trivial motor accident case pending at attestation does not justify termination for GDS post post-acquittal; employer discretion requires considering suitability.
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
