2022 Supreme(SC) 982

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
Satish Chandra Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6955 of 2022(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20860 of 2019) With Civil Appeal No. of 2022 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5170 of 2021)
Decided on : 26-09-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Dismissal – If a particular employee suppresses something important or makes any false declaration with a view to secure public employment then such employee could be said to have exhibited a tendency which is likely to shake confidence of employer – In such circumstances, it would be within discretion of employer whether to continue or not to continue such an employee who has exhibited a tendency which reflects on his overall character or credibility – Acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post.
(2) Decisions classified as discretionary may only be reviewed on limited grounds such as the bad faith of decision-makers, exercise of discretion for an improper purpose and use of irrelevant considerations.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Dismissal – Irrespective of fact whether dispute is of a trivial nature or not, it is credibility/ trustworthiness of a particular employee which matters the most when it comes to public employment – If a particular employee suppresses something important or makes any false declaration with a view to secure public employment then such employee could be said to have exhibited a tendency which is likely to shake confidence of employer – In such circumstances, it would be within discretion of employer whether to continue or not to continue such an employee who has exhibited a tendency which reflects on his overall character or credibility – Acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post – It would be still open to employer to consider antecedents and examine whether candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post – If it is found that employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service – Generalisations about youth, career prospects and age of candidates leading to condonation of offenders’ conduct, should not enter judicial verdict and should be avoided. (Paras 65 and 69)

(B) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Special Leave to Appeal – Unless it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist; that substantial and grave injustice have been done and case and question present features of sufficient gravity to warrant review of decision appealed against, Supreme Court would not exercise its overriding powers under Article 136(1) of Constitution – Wide discretionary power with which Supreme Court is invested under Article 136 is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only. (Para 75)

(C) Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 – Rule 5(1) – Dismissal from service as a Constable (General Duty) with CRPF – Appellant had been given appointment on probation subject to verification of facts given in verification Form – If an enquiry revealed that facts given were wrong, respondent was at liberty to dispense with services of appellant as question of any stigma and penal consequences at this stage would not arise – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 77 and 81)

(D) Administrative Law – Discretionary Decisions – Decisions classified as discretionary may only be reviewed on limited grounds such as the bad faith of decision-makers, exercise of discretion for an improper purpose and use of irrelevant considerations – Courts should not lightly interfere with such decisions and should give considerable respect to decision-makers when reviewing manner in which discretion was exercised – However, discretion must still be exercised in a manner that is within a reasonable interpretation of margin of manoeuvre contemplated by Legislature, in accordance with principles of rule of law. (Para 78)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal is at the instance of an unsuccessful writ applicant of a writ application being Writ Petition (C) No. 1167 of 2018 filed in the High Court of Delhi and is directed against judgment and order dated 15.04.2019 by which a Division Bench of the High Court rejected writ application filed by the writ applicant (appellant herein) thereby affirming the dismissal of appellant herein from service as a Constable (General Duty) with CRPF.

Findings of Court:

It was a deliberate attempt on the part of appellant to withhold the relevant information and it is this omission which has led to the termination of his service during the probation period.

Result : Appeals dismissed.