Union of India and Others vs Shishu Pal @ Shiv Pal

Held: Purpose of seeking the relevant information with respect to the antecedents of a candidate/employee is to enable the employer to ascertain the suitability of the candidate/employee for the subject post – No occasion for the Single Judge to have interfered in the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority terminating the service of the respondent, duly upheld by the Appellate Authority – Respondent does not deserve any latitude as it has been established beyond doubt that he was all along aware of the FIR registered against him with the Police Station, and the ensuing criminal cases – Also respondent failed to disclose that he had remained in judicial custody and on moving an application, was released on bail – All the said events had occurred well before the respondent had filled up the Verification Roll – He had wilfully withheld material information from the appellants while filling up the Verification Roll – Further misconducted himself when the appellants issued him a showcause notice calling upon him to explain his position and falsely denied the allegations levelled against him in his reply to the notice that ultimately led to initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him – Appellants exercised their discretion as employers in a reasonable manner – Disciplinary proceedings were conducted in a fair manner and taken to their logical conclusion – Only thereafter did the Disciplinary Authority pass an order terminating the services of the respondent which order was upheld by the appellant authority, for just and valid reasons – Thus, the decision of the appellants to terminate the services of the respondent was not unjustified, tainted by any malafides or arbitrariness or too harsh – Impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court upholding the judgment passed by the Single Judge quashed and set aside. [Paras 21, 24, 26-28]