The Supreme Court of India observed that an employee’s job can be terminated if it is found that he withheld or provided false information regarding matters affecting his capacity or eligibility for the position.
The bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala observed that the suppression of important facts and the making of a false statement in the verification form relating to an employee’s arrest, prosecution, conviction, etc., have a clear impact on the employee’s character, behaviour, and background, LiveLaw reported.
The court further stated that a candidate would not automatically be appointed to the position following their acquittal in a criminal case; rather, the employer would still have the option to consider the individual’s background and determine whether they are qualified to fill the position.
Satish Chandra Yadav worked for the CRPF as a Constable (General Duty). After it was found that he had concealed the existence of a criminal case against him for the offences covered by Sections 147, 323, 324, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, he was fired from his job. He went to the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court affirmed the dismissal.
Advocate Jyoti Dutt Sharma argued on behalf of the appellant Yadav before the Apex Court bench that the charges against him were quite trivial and without any element of moral turpitude. It was argued that the concealment, assuming it were to be believed, could not be used as a justification to refuse public employment. However, the respondent’s Additional Solicitor General (ASG), Madhavi Divan, argued that the appellant had “suppressed” important information, which was reason enough to have his employment terminated.
The panel cited a number of precedents in its ruling, including Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, which dealt with the issue of withholding information or providing false information on a verification form. The court observed that the legal standards outlined therein governing the matter are rather ambiguous and that even after the bigger Bench ruling in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), other courts have articulated various standards. The court then went about narrowing down the general legal principles that ought to be applied to cases of the current kind of litigation:
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 (supra)]
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’ conduct, 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?
The court further stated that it should only use its broad discretionary authority, which is granted to it by Article 136, in special circumstances.
We are of the opinion that it was a deliberate attempt on the part of the appellant Satish Chandra Yadav to withhold the relevant information and it is this omission which has led to the termination of his service during the probation period, the bench said while dismissing the appeal.
The Chenab Times News Desk