Service Law – Appointment – Suppression of information/submitting false information in the verification form – Dismissal of the appellants from service – Correctness of – Held: In case of appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of the SLP (C) No. 20860 of 2019, what led to the termination of his services was not his involvement in the criminal case which was then pending, and in which he was acquitted subsequently but the fact that he had withheld relevant information while filling in the verification Form – Appellant was given appointment on probation subject to the verification of facts given in the verification Form – Therefore, if an enquiry revealed that the facts given were wrong, the respondent was at liberty to dispense with the services of the appellant – In the connected Appeal arising out of the SLP (C) No. 5170 of 2021, the appellant had put in about four years of service before he came to be terminated, however the said appeal also fails on the very same line of reasoning – Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 – r.5 – CRPF Act, 1949 – Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 – r.27.
Service Law – Appointment – Public employment – Criminal Antecedents – Suppression of information or submitting false information in the verification Form – Principles of law to be made applicable to such litigations – Held: Each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by the public employer concerned, through its designated officials- more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society’s security – Even in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate – Further, acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post – It would be still open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether the candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post – Generalisations about the youth, career prospects and age of the candidates leading to condonation of the offenders conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided. Service Law – Appointment – Suppression of information/submitting false information in the verification form – Criminal prosecution, arrest or pendency of a criminal case – Precedent of Avtar Singh case – Position of law post Avtar Singh – Discussed. Constitution of India – Article 136 – Scope of appeal under – Held: Unless, it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist; that substantial and grave injustice have been done and the case and question present features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against, Supreme Court would not exercise its overriding powers u.Article 136(1) – The wide discretionary power invested u/Article 136 is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The only reason to refer to and look into the various decisions rendered by this Court over a period of time is that the principles of law laid therein governing the subject are bit inconsistent. Even after, the larger Bench decision in the case of Avtar Singh different courts have enunciated different principles. In such circumstances, this Court has undertaken some exercise to shortlist the broad principles of law which should be made applicable to the litigations of the present nature. The principles are as follows:
a) Each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by the public employer concerned, through its designated officials–more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society’s security. [See Raj Kumar]
b) Even in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. The acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post. It would be still open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether the candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post.
c) The suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification Form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee. If it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service.
d) The generalisations about the youth, career prospects and age of the candidates leading to condonation of the offenders’ 0conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided.
e) The Court should inquire whether the Authority concerned whose action is being challenged acted mala fide. f) Is there any element of bias in the decision of the Authority?
g) Whether the procedure of inquiry adopted by the Authority concerned was fair and reasonable? [Paras 68, 69][586G-H; 587-A-G] Avatar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : [2016] 7 SCR 445; Commissioner of Police v. Raj Kumar, (2021) 8 SCC 347 – referred to.
2. Article 136 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to grant special leave in its discretion against any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal except by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the armed forces. The jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 is divisible into two stages: the first stage is upto the disposal of prayer for the special leave to file an appeal and the second stage commences, if and when, the leave to appeal is granted and the special leave petition is converted into an appeal. Thus, the principles of law discernible from the aforesaid are that unless, it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist; that substantial and grave injustice have been done and the case and question present features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against, this Court would not exercise its overriding powers under Article 136(1) of the Constitution. The wide discretionary power with which this Court is invested under Article
136 is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only. [Paras 70, 71 & 75][587-G-H; 588-C-D; 592-E-F] Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169:[1950] SCR 453; P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam and Another, (1980) 3 SCC 141 : [1980] 2 SCR 873 – followed. Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359 : [2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538; Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd.,
(2019) 4 SCC 376 : [2019] 3 SCR 411; Hem Raj, Son of Devilal Mahajan of Bijainagar, Condemned Prisoner, at Present Confined in the Central Jail, Ajmer v. State of Ajmer, AIR 1954 SC 462 : [1954] SCR 1133 – relied on.
3.1 In so far as the Appeal arising out of the Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20860 of 2019 filed by ‘SCY’ is concerned, the same should fail. This Court is not at all convinced with the case put forward by ‘SCY’ for informing the respondent herein that there was no criminal case pending against him on the date he filled up the verification form. The explanation offered by ‘SCY’ is nothing but his own understanding of what is prosecution and pendency of a criminal case. If he knows that trial is deemed to have commenced with the framing of charge, then he knows and understands what is criminal prosecution. Indisputably, ‘SCY’ was still under probation at the time, his services had been terminated. It is also apparent from the record that ‘SCY’ had been given appointment on probation subject to the verification of facts given in the verification Form. Therefore, if an enquiry revealed that the facts given were wrong, the respondent herein was at liberty to dispense with the services of the appellant ‘SCY’ as the question of any stigma and penal consequences at this stage would not arise. It bears repetition that what has led to the termination of the services of the appellant ‘SCY’ is not his involvement in the criminal case which was then pending, and in which he had been acquitted subsequently but the fact that he had withheld relevant information while filling in the verification Form. He could be said to have exhibited or displayed such a tendency which shook the confidence of the respondent. Administrative law has traditionally approached the review of decisions classified as discretionary separately from those seen as involving the interpretation of rules of law. The rule has been that the decisions classified as discretionary may only be reviewed on limited grounds such as the bad faith of decision-makers, the exercise of discretion for an improper purpose, and the use of irrelevant considerations. A general doctrine of “unreasonableness” has also sometimes been applied to the discretionary decisions. These doctrines incorporate two central ideas — those discretionary decisions, like all other administrative decisions, must be made within the bounds of the jurisdiction conferred by the statutory rules, but that considerable deference will be given to the decisionmakers by the courts in reviewing the exercise of that discretion and determining the scope of the decision-makers’ jurisdiction. These doctrines recognise that it is the intention of a legislature, when using statutory language that confers broad choices on the administrative agencies, that courts should not lightly interfere with such decisions, and should give considerable respect to the decision-makers when reviewing the manner in which discretion was exercised. However, discretion must still be exercised in a manner that is within a reasonable interpretation of the margin of manoeuvre contemplated by the legislature, in accordance with the principles of the rule of law. [Paras 76-78][592-F-H; 593-AG]
3.2 The learned ASG has rightly relied on Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan in which this Court held that the purpose of requiring an employee to furnish information regarding prosecution/conviction, etc. in the verification Form was to assess his character and antecedents for the purpose of employment and continuation in service; that suppression of material information and making a false statement in reply to the queries relating to prosecution and conviction had a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee; and that where it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters which had a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he could be terminated from service during the period of probation without holding any inquiry. This Court also made it clear that neither the gravity of the criminal offence nor the ultimate acquittal therein was relevant when considering whether a probationer who suppresses a material fact (of his being involved in a criminal case, in the personal information furnished to the employer), is fit to be continued as a probationer. The observations in the aforesaid case are fully applicable to the appeal filed by ‘SCY’. It was a deliberate attempt on the part of the appellant ‘SCY’ to withhold the relevant information and it is this omission which has led to the termination of his service during the probation period. So far as the connected Appeal arising out of the Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5170 of 2021 filed by ‘PKY’ is concerned, the same also fails on the very same line of reasoning. The only difference in the case of the appellant ‘PKY’ is that he had put in about four years of service before he came to be terminated. [Paras 79-82][593-H; 594-A-F]
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Ram Ratan Yadav, (2003) 3 SCC 437 : [2003] 2 SCR 361 – relied on.
Union of India and Others v. Methu Meda, (2022) 1 SCC 1; Union of India and Others v. M. Bhaskaran, AIR (1996) SC 686 : [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 526; Delhi Administration, v. Sushil Kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605 : [1996] 7 Suppl. SCR 199; Kamal Nayan Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (2010) 2 SCC 169 : [2009] 16 SCR 237; R. Radhakrishnan v. Director General of Police and Others, (2008) 1 SCC 660 : [2007] 11 SCR 456; Union of India and Others v. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen, (2008) 11 SCC 314 : [2008] 8 SCR 99; State of Haryana and Others v. Dinesh Kumar (2008)
(3) SCC 222 : [2008] 1 SCR 281; Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India and Others, (2010) 14 SCC 103 : [2010] 13 SCR 1076; Commissioner of Police and Others. v. Sandeep Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 644 : [2011]
3 SCR 964; Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P. Tr. Prinl. Sec. Home and Others, (2012) 8 SCC 748 : [2012] 6 SCR 1047; Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : [2016] 7 SCR 445; Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another v. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685 : [2013] 13 SCR 432; Union
Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Others v. Pradeep Kumar and Another, (2018) 1 SCC 797 :
[2018] 1 SCR 112; State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Bunty, (2020) 17 SCC 654; State of Rajasthan and Others v. Love Kush Meena, (2021) 8 SCC 774; Union of India (UOI) v. Dilip Kumar Mallick, (2022) 6 Scale 108; Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 532; Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and another v. Anil Kanwariya, (2021)
10 SCC 136; Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2019) 17 SCC 696 – 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.