Service Law – Termination from services – Non-disclosure/suppression of material fact and filing a false declaration – Appellants invited applications for the post of Technical Helper – Respondent-employee was appointed for the said post as a probationer trainee for a period of two years – As per the appointment order, the respondent was required to produce a character certification/verification report iss ued by the Superintendent of Police (SP) of the concerned District from where he belonged – SP informed the appellants that the respondent was convicted by the trial Court for the offences u/s 341, 323 IPC, however, given the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and the respondent-employee was ordered to be released on probation for good conduct – Having found that the respondent deliberately suppressed the fact of conviction and penalty, not only at the time of applying post, but also when 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 – Appellant was terminated – Writ Petition – The High Court quashed and set aside the order of the termination and directed reinstatement of the respondent – On appeal, held: At the time when respondent-employee submitted the application for appointment, he did not disclose the fact that he already suffered a conviction by the Competent Court but in fact, a false declaration was filed that neither any criminal case is pending against him nor he has been convicted by any Court of law – It is only after the police verification, the appellants came to know about the conviction of the respondent – Therefore, the appellants were absolutely justified in terminating the services of the respondent – The question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee, the question is of TRUST – The order of reinstatement is wholly untenable and unjustified.
Allowing the appeals, this Court
HELD: 1. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the various decisions to the facts of the case on hand, the impugned order passed by the Division Bench dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the Single Judge quashing and setting aside the order of termination terminating the services of the employee on the ground of non-disclosure/suppression of material fact and filing a false declaration and directing the appellants to reinstate the respondent-employee is unsustainable. [Para 9][728-B-D]
2. Apart from the fact that at the time when the respondent applied in the month of October/November, 2013 though he was already convicted by the competent court and was given the benefit under Section 3 of the Act 1958 only, he did not disclose his conviction, but even at the time when he filed a declaration on 14.04.2015 he filed a false declaration that neither any criminal case is pending against him nor he has been convicted by any court of law and relying upon such a declaration the appellants gave him appointment. Only on police verification/receipt of the antecedent’s report from the Superintendent of Police, the appellants came to know about the conviction of the respondent. Therefore, the appellants were absolutely justified in terminating the services of the respondent. [Para 10][728-D-F]
3. Even the conduct on the part of the respondent to obtain the order subsequently from the Sessions Court in an appeal and getting the benefit of Section 12 of the Act 1958 deserves consideration. The judgment and order of conviction by the trial Court was passed as far back as on 5.8.2013. For two years, the respondent did not file any appeal before the Sessions Court. After a period of approximately two years and after he obtained the appointment on the basis of the false declaration that neither any criminal case is pending against him nor he has been convicted by any court of law and having realised that his conviction and the benefit granted under Section 3 of the Act 1958 by the trial Court only will come in his way, subsequently after a period of two years he filed an appeal before the Sessions Court on 11.08.29015 and the appeal came to be disposed of within a period of one month, i.e., on 9.9.2015 and the Sessions Court granted the benefit of Section 12 of the Act 1958. From the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, it appears that the respondent only prayed for giving the benefit of Section 12 of the Act 1958 and nothing was contended by him with regard to conviction and order of sentence. Therefore, with a view to get out of the conviction and the benefit of Section 3 of the Act 1958 only and having realised that his conviction may come in his way, he preferred an appeal after a period of two years and obtained the benefit of Section 12 of the Act 1958 which provides that a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or section
4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law. [Para 11][728-F-H; 729-A-D]
4. The issue/question may be considered from another angle, from the employer’s point of view. The question is not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently acquitted or not. The question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of the employment, i.e., while submitting the 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 the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him. Then the question is of TRUST. Therefore, in such a situation, where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to the employer. It is observed and as observed hereinabove in catena of decision such an employee cannot claim the appointment and/or continue to be in service as a matter of right. [Para 12][729-F-H; 730-A-B]
Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal, (2013) 9 SCC
363 : [2013] 8 SCR 471; Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P., (2012) 8 SCC 748 : [2012] 6 SCR 1047; Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India, (2010) 14 SCC 103 : [2010] 13 SCR 1076; Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : [2016] 7 SCR 445 – relied on. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav, (2003) 3 SCC 437 : [2003] 2 SCR 361; Secretary, Department of Home Secretary, A.P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu, (2005) 2 SCC 746 : [2005] 1 SCR 1147; State of M.P. v. Abhijit Singh Pawar, (2018) 18 SCC 733 : [2018] 13 SCR 1133; T. S. Vasudavan Nair v. Director of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, (1988) Suppl. SCC 795; Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011)
4 SCC 644 : [2011] 3 SCR 964 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.