NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

  CIVIL APPEAL  NO(S). 18798/2017 (ARISING FROM SLP(C) No.20525/2011)

AVTAR SINGH APPELLANT(S)                                 VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J.

Leave granted. 2. This  is  a  case  in  which  the  appellant  was terminated from service on account of suppression of his involvement in a criminal case.  He was enlisted for appointment in CRPF on 24.08.1994.  He submitted a  verification  form  on  9.12.1994.   Column  No.12 belonged to involvement in any criminal case.  That was left unfilled. 3. On subsequent verification it was found that an FIR  had  been  registered  against  him  on  28.10.1992 under Sections 323, 324 read with Section 34 IPC.  He was acquitted by judgment dated 2.5.1994.  But, an appeal  at  the  instance  of  the  respondent(s)  was pending when the termination took place.  The High Court has upheld the termination.

1

4. In  Avtar  Singh v.  Union  of  India  and  Others, reported  in  (2016)  8  SCC  471,  this  Court  has considered in detail as to the circumstances under which the stringent action could be taken and to what extent  the  employer  can  exercise  its  discretion. Relevant portion reads as follows:-

“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  of  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.

2

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 recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted : 38.4.1. In a 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 candidature or terminate 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

3

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

4

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 of 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 basis of suppression or

5

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.”

5. In view of the judgment in Avtar Singh (supra), operative portion of which we have extracted above, we direct the Appointing Authority to consider afresh the case of the appellant in the light of the law laid down by this Court and subsequent development pertaining  to the  order passed  in appeal  and pass appropriate orders thereon. 6. We make it clear that a speaking order will be passed. 7. In order to enable the Appointing Authority to pass  orders, as  above, we  direct the  appellant to file  an  appropriate  representation  before  the Appointing  Authority  and  the  Appointing  Authority will pass orders, in accordance with law, within four months from the date of receipt of a representation after  affording  an  opportunity  of  hearing  to  the appellant. 8. The appeal is disposed of as above.

6

9. Pending  applications,  if  any,  shall  stand disposed of. 10. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.......................J.               [R. BANUMATHI]  

NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER 15, 2017.

7