Shatrughn Yadav vs The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.

Held: Termination is not an automatic consequence of the disclosure of criminal antecedents; rather, the specific case of the employee must be considered, and the employer must apply its mind before arriving at a decision – The enquiry to be undertaken by the employer, before proceeding to terminate the services of an employee on the ground of suppression of information regarding criminal antecedents, is essentially two-pronged – The first is one of fact: whether there has, in truth, been any suppression or furnishing of false information by the candidate, having regard to the extent of his knowledge at the relevant time and the circumstances in which the declaration came to be made – The second prong of enquiry requires the authorities to apply their mind to the specific facts and circumstances of the case including the type of the suppression, the nature of allegations, role and gravity of the offence, the nature of the post and the duties attached to it and wherever relevant the effect thereof, and the eventual outcome of the criminal proceedings, if concluded, in order to arrive at a considered conclusion as to whether the continuation of the employee in service would not be feasible and the only option available is termination from service – It is only where both these stages of enquiries are undertaken and not otherwise, that an order of termination on this ground can be said to be sustainable in law – Appellant’s consistent claim of bona fide ignorance of the Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) against him u/ss.323, 504, IPC stands duly established by documentary evidence on record – Claim of the appellant stands substantiated that, in the absence of any summons, and having never been called to the police station, arrested, or questioned, the appellant had no means of knowing about the NCR – Furthermore, although sufficient opportunity was granted to the appellant to put forth his case, the authorities have not undertaken any enquiry – They have not considered the specific facts and circumstances and have proceeded under the presumption that existence of the criminal antecedent would automatically render the appellant ineligible for the post – There have been no specific findings regarding the specific nature of the offence and its impact on the nature of the post held by the appellant, and the subsequent discharge of the appellant has not been given due consideration – Termination of the appellant was not permissible in law, the order being illegal as well as without application of mind – Order of termination set aside – To be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential benefits, except for backwages which will be restricted to 50%. [Paras 21, 24, 29, 32-35]

Alternative Remedy – Existence of, not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly where the challenge is to the legality of the order of termination itself – Objection raised on behalf of the respondents as to the maintainability of the writ petition contending that the appellant ought to have availed of the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the matter, involving disputed questions of fact, was not amenable to writ jurisdiction: Held: Submission not accepted – The existence of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly where the challenge is to the legality of the order of termination itself. [Para 18] Service Law – Suppression of information with regard to criminal antecedents – When not – Where the very existence of a criminal antecedent is not shown to have been within the candidate’s knowledge at the relevant time, he cannot be held to have suppressed or furnished false information in that regard – Respondents contended that the appellant could not have been unaware of the NCR since his parents were also named therein:

Held: No material was placed on record to show that the appellant was in fact informed by his parents of the registration of the NCR, or that he was otherwise put to notice of the same – In the absence of any such evidence, the respondents’ submission remains a matter of surmise and cannot displace the documentary material relied upon and placed on record by the appellant, particularly the character certificate by the Senior Superintendent of Police given subsequent to the date of the lodging of the NCR stating that there were no adverse entries against the appellant in the police records and a subsequent certificate issued by the SubInspector of Police disclosing that although the appellant was initially arrayed in the NCR, his name was later removed after investigation as no evidence was found against him – Knowledge of a fact is a necessary pre-requisite for its non-disclosure – The very concept of suppression presupposes an awareness of that which is suppressed; one cannot be said to have withheld or concealed something of which one had no knowledge in the first place – It would be both illogical and unjust to hold a candidate liable for suppression of information that was never within his knowledge to begin with – Therefore, where the very existence of a criminal antecedent is not shown to have been within the candidate’s knowledge at the relevant time, he cannot be held to have suppressed or furnished false information in that regard, there being no suppression of a fact that was, to him, non-existent – Such lack of awareness of the existence of a criminal antecedent is itself a fact that must be established by the candidate, the onus being upon him to substantiate the claim before the employer – A bare plea of ignorance, without cogent and reliable material to assert such claim, will not suffice to escape liability – Were it otherwise, the requirement of disclosure in verification forms would be rendered illusory, open to circumvention by simply pleading ignorance. [Paras 27, 28, 30-32]