2022 Supreme(SC) 391

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AJAY RASTOGI, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
Pawan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 3574 of 2022 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6009 of 2016)
Decided On : 02-05-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Appointment – A candidate who intends to participate in selection process is always required to furnish correct information relating to his character and antecedents in verification/attestation form before and after induction into service – A person who has suppressed material information or has made false declaration has no unfettered right of seeking appointment or continuity in service.
(2) Termination – By mere suppression of material/false information regardless of fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Appointment – A candidate who intends to participate in selection process is always required to furnish correct information relating to his character and antecedents in verification/attestation form before and after induction into service – A person who has suppressed material information or has made false declaration has no unfettered right of seeking appointment or continuity in service, but at least has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to be judiciously exercised by competent authority in a reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of the case on hand – Yardstick/standard which has to be applied with regard to adjudging suitability of incumbent always depends upon nature of post, nature of duties, effect of suppression over suitability to be considered by authority on due diligence of various aspects but no hard and fast rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard. (Para 11)

(B) Service Law – Termination – By mere suppression of material/false information regardless of fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen – At the same time, effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for employer to consider all relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view objective criteria and relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of employee into service – Mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate employee from service – All matters cannot be put in a straitjacket and a degree of flexibility and discretion which vests with authorities, must be exercised with care and caution taking all facts and circumstances into consideration, including nature and type of lapse. (Paras 13 and 16)

(C) Service Law – Discharge – Rules 52 and 67.2 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 – From post of Constable in Railway Protection Force (RPF) – On the date when application form was filled by appellant pursuant to employment notice, no such criminal case was either instituted or pending against him and what was disclosed by him at the time of filling his application form pursuant to employment notice, there was no suppression of relevant information or submission of false declaration at that stage – A false criminal case of trivial nature came to be registered against him thereafter – Prosecution witness has not supported case of prosecution during course of trial and for that reason appellant was honourably acquitted by trial Court – Criminal case indeed was of trivial nature and nature of post and nature of duties to be discharged by recruit has never been looked into by competent authority while examining overall suitability of incumbent keeping in view Rule 52 of Rules 1987 to become a member of Force – Impugned Orders quashed and set aside – Respondents directed to reinstate appellant in service on post of Constable – However, appellant will not be entitled for arrears of salary for period during which he has not served the Force and at the same time he will be entitled for all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits, etc. (Paras 7, 18 and 19)

Facts of the case:

Instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi dated 17th November, 2015, whereby the High Court upheld the order of discharge dated 24th April, 2015, taking recourse to Clause 9(f) of employment notice no.1/2011 dated 27th February, 2011 read with Rule 67.2 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987.

Findings of Court:

Order of discharge passed by competent authority dated 24th April, 2015 is not sustainable and in sequel thereto the judgment passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Delhi does not hold good and deserves to be set aside.

Result : Appeal allowed.