Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Another – Appellants
Versus
Anil Kanwariya – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 5743-5744 of 2021, S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 7386-7387 of 2020
Decided On : 17-09-2021
Service Law – Reinstatement – Appointment obtained by suppressing material fact and filing false declaration – Respondent-employee involved in criminal case – At the time when respondent-employee applied for advertised post, he was already convicted for offences under Sections 341 and 323 IPC by competent criminal court which he did not disclose – Question is not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently acquitted or not – Question is about credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at initial stage of employment, i.e., while submitting declaration/verification and/or applying for a post made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressing material fact of having involved in a criminal case – If correct facts would have been disclosed, employer might not have appointed him – Subsequently getting benefit of Section 12 of Act 1958 shall not be helpful to respondent inasmuch as question is about filing a false declaration – Impugned order passed by Division Bench dismissing appeal and confirming order passed by Single Judge quashing and setting aside order of termination terminating services of employee on ground of non-disclosure/suppression of material fact and filing a false declaration and directing appellants to reinstate respondent-employee is unsustainable – Choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to employer – Such an employee cannot claim appointment and/or continue to be in service as a matter of right – Impugned judgment and order passed by Division Bench as well as order passed by Single Judge quashing and setting aside order of termination quashed and set aside – Consequently, writ petition filed by respondent-employee stands dismissed and order of termination stands restored. [Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Section 12] (Paras 4.3, 6, 6.3, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 560/2019, as well as the order dated 05.12.2019 passed in D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 250/2019, by which Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by Single Judge dated 23.01.2019 by which Single Judge allowed the said writ petition preferred by respondent herein and quashed and set aside the order of termination terminating services of the respondent – employee herein – original writ petitioner on the ground of suppression of material facts of conviction and penalty at the time of applying for the post in 2013 and also submitting a false declaration at the time of documents verification on 14.04.2015, the employer – Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and another have preferred the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
In view of the afore-stated facts and circumstances of the case, both, Division Bench as well as Single Judge have clearly erred in quashing and setting aside the order of termination terminating the services of the respondent on the ground of having obtained an appointment by suppressing material fact and filing a false declaration.
Result : Appeals allowed.
The provided legal document primarily discusses issues related to employment, appointment procedures, false declarations, concealment of material facts, and the consequences of obtaining employment through fraud or misrepresentation. It emphasizes that an employee who has obtained appointment by suppressing material facts or filing false declarations cannot claim a right to continue in service, and such conduct affects the credibility and trustworthiness of the employee.
Regarding the concept of a "stigmatic order," although the document does not explicitly define or directly address this term, it is generally understood in legal context as an order that has a permanent and adverse impact on a person's reputation, character, or moral standing, often resulting from a criminal conviction or moral turpitude. Such an order tends to stigmatize the individual, making it difficult for them to be reinstated or to claim certain rights, especially in employment or public service contexts.
In the context of the document, the principles suggest that if an employee's conduct or conviction is considered stigmatic—implying moral turpitude or a breach of integrity—this would significantly influence the employer's decision to continue employment. The emphasis on false declarations, concealment of criminal involvement, and the importance of trustworthiness aligns with the idea that a stigmatic order would reinforce the grounds for termination or denial of employment rights. The order's nature—whether stigmatic or not—affects the employee's ability to claim protection or reinstatement, with a stigmatic order likely serving as a basis for adverse employment actions.
In summary, while the document does not explicitly discuss "stigmatic orders," the underlying principles relate to the impact such an order would have on an individual's employment status, emphasizing that conduct leading to a stigmatic order—such as moral turpitude or serious misconduct—justifies employer actions like termination and precludes the employee from asserting a right to continued employment as a matter of right.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 560/2019, as well as the order dated 05.12.2019 passed in D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 250/2019, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 23.01.2019 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent herein and quashed and set aside the order of termination terminating the services of the respondent-employee herein-original writ petitioner on the ground of suppression of material facts of conviction and penalty at the time of applying for the post in 2013 and also submitting a false declaration at the time of documents verification on 14.04.2015, the employer-Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and another have preferred the present appeal.
3. That the appellants herein invited applications for the post of Technical Helper by issuing advertisement in the month of October, 2013. Pursuant to the said advertisement, respondent herein-employee applied for the said post. The written test was held on 02.02.2014 and result of which was declared on 31.03.2015. The date fixed for the documents’ verification was 14.04.2015. The respondent herein having qualified for the said post was appointed as a Technical Helper as probationer trainee for a period of two years on 06.05.2015 and was placed under Superintending Engineer, RVPN, Jodhpur. As per condition No. 16 of the terms and conditions of the appointment order, the appointment of the respondent was subject to production of a character certification/verification report issued by the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District where he belongs. The Superintendent of Police, Sawai Madhopur vide police verification/antecedents report dated 5.6.2015 informed the appellants that a Case bearing No. 13/2011 against the respondent-employee for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 323 IPC in which a charge-sheet was filed against the respondent-employee on 17.01.2011 and the learned trial Court convicted the respondent-employee vide judgment and order dated 5.8.2013, convicting him for the offences under Sections 341 and 323 IPC, however, given the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1958”). While giving the benefit of Act 1958, the respondent-employee was ordered to be released on probation for good conduct.
It is to be noted that even subsequently such conviction of the respondent-employee came to be confirmed, however, the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 09.09.2015 granted the benefit of Section 12 of the Act 1958 to the respondent-employee which provides that a person shall not suffer disqualification attaching to the conviction.
3.1 Having found that the respondent-employee deliberately suppressed the fact of conviction and penalty, not only at the time of applying for the post, but also on 14.04.2015 whereby he submitted a declaration during documents verification that neither criminal case is pending against him nor he has suffered any conviction by any court of law in any criminal case and finding concealment of facts of criminal case, the appellants issued a show cause notice dated 31.08.2015 to the respondent-employee and granted him an opportunity of being heard on 15.03.2016 and having found that in view of suppression of material fact of not disclosing his conviction by the competent court, respondent-employee shall not be continued in service and therefore vide order dated 6.5.2016, the appellants terminated the services of the respondent-employee.
3.2 Aggrieved by the order of termination, the respondent-employee preferred Writ Petition No. 6969 of 2016 before the learned Single Judge of the High Court. The learned Sing
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
