Mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service. (Pawan Kumar Versus Union of India, CA 3574 of 2022)
This was an appeal filed by an employee before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on being discharged from the service by the employer.
The brief facts of the instant case were, that the employment notice for appointment to the post of Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF), including Railway Police Special Force (RPSF) was published on 27th February 2011. Therefore, the Appellant being an eligible candidate submitted an application form and participated in the selection process. After qualifying the written examinationheld on 23rdJune, 2013 followed with physical efficiency test which was held on 12th June, 2014, he was sent for training. While the Appellant was undergoing training, he came to be discharged by an order dated 24th April 2015 as per clause 9(f) of the employment notice no.1/2011 dated 27th February, 2011 and Rule 67.2 of the RPF Rules 1987 for non-disclosure of a criminal case, which was registered against him and where he was acquitted.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the above facts has held that:
“This cannot be disputed that the candidate who intends to participate in the selection process is always required to furnish correct information relating to his character and antecedents in the verification/attestation form before and afterinduction into service. It is also equally true that the person who has suppressed thematerial information or has made false declaration indeed has no unfettered right ofseeking appointment or continuity in service, but at least has a right not to be dealtwith arbitrarily and power has to be judiciously exercised by the competent authorityin a reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts of the case onhand.It goes without saying that the yardstick/standard which has to be applied withregard to adjudging suitability of the incumbent always depends upon the nature ofpost, nature of duties, effect of suppression over suitability to be considered by theauthority on due diligence of various aspects but no hard and fast rule of thumb canbe laid down in this regard.”
Also by placing reliance on the Judgment given under Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471, the Apex Court has stated the following:
“What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by meresuppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is aconviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to bedischarged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the sametime, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminalcase, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstancesavailable as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevantservice rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regardingcontinuance/suitability of the employee into service. What being noticed by this Courtis that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not meanthat the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service.”
…“One distinguishing factor, as noticed above, is that the criminal complaint/FIR in the present case was registered post submission of the application form. We have also taken into account the nature of the allegations made in the criminal case and that the matter was of trivial nature not involving moral turpitude.”
…….”Adverting to the facts of the instant case, at the time of attestation form filled by the appellant, the criminal case was already registered against him but it may be noticed that at the very threshold, the complainant filed his affidavit that the complaint on which FIR came to be registered was due to misunderstanding and he did not want to pursue his case any further, but still chargesheet came to be filed and on the first date of hearing, the alleged victim PW.1 did not support case of the prosecution and thus the order of clean acquittal came to be passed by the learned Judge of competent jurisdiction by judgment dated 12th August, 2011.”
Recent Comments