2016 (7) TMI 1575 - SC - Indian Laws

Termination of services - furnishing of false information or suppression of factual information - HELD THAT - The verification of antecedents is necessary to find out fitness of incumbent in the process if a declarant is found to be of good moral character on due verification of antecedents merely by suppression of involvement in trivial offence which was not pending on date of filling attestation form whether he may be deprived of employment? There may be case of involving moral turpitude/serious offence in which employee has been acquitted but due to technical reasons or giving benefit of doubt. There may be situation when person has been convicted of an offence before filling verification form or case is pending and information regarding it has been suppressed whether employer should wait till outcome of pending criminal case to take a decision or in case when action has been initiated there is already conclusion of criminal case resulting in conviction/acquittal as the case may be. The situation may arise for consideration of various aspects in a case where disclosure has been made truthfully of required information then also authority is required to consider and verify fitness for appointment. Whether an employee on probation can be discharged/refused appointment though he has been acquitted of the charge s if his case was not pending when form was filled in such matters employer is bound to consider grounds of acquittal and various other aspects overall conduct of employee including the accusations which have been levelled? - HELD THAT - If on verification the antecedents are otherwise also not found good and in number of cases incumbent is involved then notwithstanding acquittals in a case/cases it would be open to the employer to form opinion as to fitness on the basis of material on record. In case offence is petty in nature committed at young age such as stealing a bread shouting of slogans or is such which does not involve moral turpitude cheating misappropriation etc. or otherwise not a serious or heinous offence and accused has been acquitted in such a case when verification form is filled employer may ignore lapse of suppression or submitting false information in appropriate cases on due consideration of various aspects. Suppression of material information presupposes that what is suppressed that matters not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions if any in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases - What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive nature of duties impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by concerned authorities considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction acquittal or arrest or pendency of a criminal case whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information - While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case if any while giving such information. Reference answered accordingly.

Issues Involved:
1. Suppression of information or submission of false information in the verification form.
2. Verification of character and antecedents.
3. Impact of suppression on employment.
4. Employer's discretion in termination or cancellation of appointment.
5. Legal precedents and principles regarding suppression of information.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Suppression of Information or Submission of False Information in the Verification Form:
The primary issue addressed is the suppression of information or submission of false information in the verification form regarding criminal prosecution, arrest, or the pendency of a criminal case. The Court emphasized the necessity of truthful disclosure by candidates in the verification forms. It was noted that suppression of material information or providing false information could lead to termination of services or cancellation of candidature, as such acts impact the character and antecedents of the candidate.

2. Verification of Character and Antecedents:
Verification of character and antecedents is crucial for determining the suitability of a candidate for a post, especially in disciplined forces. The Court highlighted that the verification process is essential to ensure that only individuals with appropriate character and integrity are appointed. The significance of verifying character and antecedents was underscored in various judgments, including the necessity to disclose any involvement in criminal cases, as it directly affects the candidate's suitability for the post.

3. Impact of Suppression on Employment:
The Court discussed the impact of suppression of material information on employment. It was observed that suppression of information regarding involvement in criminal cases or providing false information has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the candidate. Such suppression can lead to termination or cancellation of appointment, as it indicates a lack of integrity and honesty, which are essential for certain positions, especially in uniformed services.

4. Employer's Discretion in Termination or Cancellation of Appointment:
The Court acknowledged the employer's discretion in terminating services or canceling the appointment of candidates who suppressed material information or provided false information. It was noted that the employer must exercise this discretion judiciously, considering various factors such as the nature of the suppression, the seriousness of the offense, and the overall conduct of the candidate. The employer's decision should not be arbitrary and must be based on objective criteria.

5. Legal Precedents and Principles Regarding Suppression of Information:
The judgment referred to several legal precedents to establish principles regarding suppression of information. Key cases discussed include:
- Ramashanker Raghuvanshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh: The Court held that past political activities should not bar public employment.
- T.S. Vasudavan Nair v. Director of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre: Non-disclosure of a minor conviction was not considered material suppression.
- Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran: Employment obtained through fraud or forged documents is voidable at the employer's discretion.
- Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar: Mere acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle a person to employment in disciplined forces.
- Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav: Suppression of material information regarding pending criminal cases is a major offense warranting termination.
- Union of India v. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen: Suppression of involvement in serious offenses like rape and cheating justified termination.

Conclusion:
The Court summarized the principles to be followed in cases of suppression of information or submission of false information:
1. Information regarding conviction, acquittal, arrest, or pending criminal cases must be truthful.
2. Employers may consider special circumstances while deciding on termination or cancellation of candidature.
3. Employers should follow applicable government orders, instructions, and rules.
4. In cases of trivial offenses, employers may condone suppression.
5. Employers have the right to consider antecedents even if the candidate truthfully declares past criminal cases.
6. Deliberate suppression of multiple pending cases warrants termination.
7. Employers must conduct a departmental inquiry before terminating a confirmed employee.
8. Verification forms must be clear and specific to avoid ambiguity.
9. Knowledge of the fact must be attributable to the candidate before holding them guilty of suppression.

The judgment provides a comprehensive framework for handling cases of suppression of information in employment verification forms, ensuring a balanced approach that considers the nature of the offense, the candidate's conduct, and the employer's discretion.

← Previous Next →