Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(JHK) 660
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Dr. S.N. Pathak, J
Pranab Haldar – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
W.P.(S) No.7258 of 2017
For the Appellant: Mrs. Ritu Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Prashant Vidyarathi
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Service Termination
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Verification of character and antecedents is mandatory prior to appointment; suppression of relevant information constitutes a breach of agreement between employee and employer. The candidate suppressed prior involvement in a criminal case during the application process, which warranted termination during probation.
(C) The court held that mere involvement in minor offences should not automatically disqualify an individual for employment, yet failure to disclose such information can justify termination.
(D) Issues included whether the suppression of information rendered the petitioner's employment unjustifiable and whether the decisions were legally sound. (E) The findings reaffirm that disclosure of criminal history is essential for evaluating suitability for service and that failure to do so can lead to lawful termination. (F) Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court’s consideration of the relevance of disclosure in employment. (Para 6 , 8 , 10) |
| 2. judgment based on the need for truthful declaration in employment forms. (Para 9) |
| 3. conclusion of dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 11) |
6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that there has been a suppression of fact in giving the information in the Attestation Form by the petitioner after the appointment. The Attestation Form is at Annexure-C to the counter- affidavit, which clearly stipulates that ‘‘Warning” at Column No.1 to 3, which reads thus:-
1. The furnishing of false information or suppresion of any factual information in the Attestation Form would be a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government.
2. If detained, convicted, debarred etc. Subsequent to the completion and submission of this Form the details should be communicated immediately to the authority to whom the Attestation form has been sent earlier failing which it will be deemed to be a suppression of factual information.
3. If the fact that false inforamtion has been furnsihed or that there has been suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form comes to notices at any time during the service of a person, his service would be liable to be terminated.
7. Further, in Column 12 as well as after (k) of the said Form, there has been a relevant point also, which reads thus:-
12. ( a) Have you ever been arrested ?
(b) Have you ever been prosecuted ?
(c) have you ever been kept under detention ?
After (k) : If the answer to any of the above mentioned question is Yes give full particulars of the case /arrest /detention /fine /conviction /sentence /punishment etc. and/or the nature of the case pending in the court/University/Educational Authority etc. At the time of filling up this Form .
8. The petitoner while filling up the said Attestion Form at the time of appointment had answered the aforesaid column as ‘No’, which clearly shows that he willfully suppressed the fact that he has already been involved in the criminal case though acquitted/discharged prior to appointment, ignoring the ‘Warning’ mentioned into the Attestation Form and as such, the petitoner wanted to conceal his criminal antecedents and if the petitoner was honest and fair, he could have clearly mentioned about his arrest and acquittal/discharge and as such, the same amounts to suppression of fact and Breach of Agreement also. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India , reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 , wherein His Lordship held that:-
3. It cannot be disputed that 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. Mere involvement in some petty kind of case would not render a person unsuitable for the job. Way back in the year 1983, in State of M.P. v. Ramashanker Raghuvanshi [ State of M.P. v. Ramashanker Raghuvanshi , (1983) 2 SCC
