Satya Prakash @APPELLANT@Hash Union of India & Ors

The petitioner in the instant petition has challenged order dt.13.10.2013 whereby his services have been terminated. The petitioner had filed appeal

before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide order dt.24.03.2014.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that services of the petitioner have been terminated on the ground that there is concealment of the

fact by the petitioner of his involvement in a criminal case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 325, 326 and 308 IPC. Learned counsel

has submitted that the petitioner was acquitted in the case along with his family members and he had no intentions to conceal the said fact while filing

up the verification roll. Learned counsel has submitted that on account of suppression of fact in regard to the case where the petitioner has already

been acquitted, the termination order of the petitioner cannot be sustained.

Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the acquittal of the petitioner was by giving benefit of doubt and as such it was not an

honourable acquittal. Learned counsel has further submitted that the services of the petitioner have been terminated on account of suppression of

facts and not on account of gravity of offence, in which he was acquitted on technical grounds.

Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner ought to have disclosed all the details which were sought in the verification form and as such

no intereference is required by this Court.

The Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 has laid down the parameters in respect of

employees, who do not disclose the fact of their involvement in a criminal case. The Apex Court in para 38 has summarized consequences in respect

of the cases where the concealment of fact taken place while submitting the information to the employer. The relevant para 38 of the judgment in the

case of Avtar Singh (supra) is reproduced hereunder.

“38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we

summarise our conclusion thus:

38.1. 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.

38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice to special

circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.

38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded

before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the

case may be adopted:

38.4.1. In case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed

would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false

information by condoning the lapse.

38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel condidature or termination services of the

employee.

38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not

a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and

may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.

38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider

antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in

facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.

38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an

employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases

were pending may not be proper.

38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing

authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.

38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or

dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.

38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was

required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge for the employer the same

can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on the basis of

suppression of submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.

38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.â€​

This Court by following the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) deems it proper to grant liberty to the petitioner to

approach the respondents by way of representation giving complete details as in what manner he had filed the application form. The respondents after

receipt of representation, are required to consider the representation of the petitioner in objective manner by following law laid down in the case of

Avtar Singh (Supra).

The order of termination as well as the order of Appellate Authority are quashed and set aside and the petition is disposed of with a direction to the

petitioner to file detailed representation within a period of four weeks. It is expected from the authorities that the representation, if so filed, shall be

decided by them by a reasoned and speaking order expeditiously but in no case later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.