2012 (7) TMI 1009 - SC - Indian Laws

Termination of a Constable in the Police Department - Held that - When we consider the principles laid down in majority of the decisions the question that looms large before us is when consideration of such claim by the candidates who deliberately suppressed information at the time of recruitment; can there be different yardsticks applied in the matter of grant of relief. Though there are very many decisions in support of the various points culled out in the above paragraphs inasmuch as we have noted certain other decisions taking different view of coordinate Benches we feel it appropriate to refer the above mentioned issues to a larger Bench of this Court for an authoritative pronouncement so that there will be no conflict of views and which will enable the Courts to apply the law uniformily while dealing with such issues. With that view we feel it appropriate to refer this matter to be considered by a larger Bench of this Court. Registry is directed to place all the relevant documents before the Hon ble the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Termination of a Constable for concealing relevant facts.
- Conflicting judicial views on the termination of employment for suppression of material information.
- Applicability of precedents in similar cases.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Termination of a Constable for Concealing Relevant Facts
The appellant, after successfully completing the selection process for the post of Constable, submitted a Declaration Form affirming that he had no criminal record. However, it was later discovered that he was involved in a criminal case under Sections 147, 323, 336 IPC, which was pending at the time of his selection. Consequently, the Senior Superintendent of Police terminated his appointment on 27.10.2007 for concealing this information. The High Court upheld this termination, emphasizing that the appellant's deliberate concealment of vital information disqualified him from the post, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Ram Ratan Yadav.

Issue 2: Conflicting Judicial Views on Termination for Suppression of Material Information
The appellant's counsel cited several Supreme Court decisions, including Kamal Nayan Mishra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P., and Commissioner of Police vs. Sandeep Kumar, which took a different stance than Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Ram Ratan Yadav. These cases suggested that subsequent acquittal or the nature of the criminal offense could influence the decision on termination. The State's counsel, however, argued that the principle laid down in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan had been consistently followed in subsequent decisions, justifying the High Court's ruling.

Issue 3: Applicability of Precedents in Similar Cases
The Court reviewed various decisions to determine whether the issue required further deliberation for an authoritative pronouncement. Decisions supporting the principle in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan emphasized that suppression of material information warranted termination to maintain the integrity of the service. Cases such as Union of India vs. M. Bhaskaran, Delhi Administration vs. Sushil Kumar, and Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda vs. Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, reiterated that fraudulent or misleading declarations by candidates justified termination without inquiry.

Conversely, cases like Commissioner of Police, Delhi vs. Dhaval Singh and Kamal Nayan Mishra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh highlighted instances where subsequent disclosure or the nature of the offense led to a more lenient view, suggesting that not all instances of suppression should result in automatic termination.

Conclusion and Reference to Larger Bench
The Court acknowledged the conflicting views and the need for a uniform standard in such cases. It outlined key principles, including the importance of integrity in uniformed services, the employer's discretion in termination for fraudulent declarations, and the necessity of verifying a candidate's antecedents. Given the divergent judicial opinions, the Court decided to refer the matter to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement to ensure consistency in future rulings.

The Registry was directed to place all relevant documents before the Chief Justice for the constitution of a larger Bench to resolve the conflicting views and provide clear guidance on the issue.