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

  CIVIL APPEAL  NO(S). 18799/2017 (ARISING FROM SLP(C) No.4757/2014)

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. APPELLANT(S)                                 VERSUS

AMIT SINGH RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

Leave granted. 2. The appellants are before this Court, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High  Court,  as  confirmed  by  the  Division  Bench, wherein the termination of the respondent has been found to be illegal.  The respondent was terminated from service on the basis of information gathered, on verification of the antecedents.  Though it was done after three years of entering service, it was found that the respondent had been involved in a criminal case. 3. According  to  the  learned  counsel  for  the respondent,  it  was  a  trivial  issue  between  the friends in a cricket match and hence the same was

1

compounded by the learned Magistrate.  In any case, all this had happened much prior to his filing of application for appointment. 4. In a recent judgment of this Court in Avtar Singh v.  Union of India and Others, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, this Court has dealt with the issue.  The relevant portion of the judgment 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 case  of  clean  acquittal,  or  benefit  of

3

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.

4

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 submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for. 38.11. Before a person is held guilty of

5

suppressio  veri  or  suggestio  falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.”

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this is a case where the respondent should be permitted to file an appropriate  representation  before  the  Appointing Authority.  Ordered accordingly. In the event of such a  representation  is  filed,  in  the  light  of  the judgment  referred  to  above  and  in  particular paragraph 38.4.1 of the judgment read with any other relevant  instructions,  a  speaking  order  on  the representation  shall  be  passed  after  affording  an opportunity  for  hearing  to  the  respondent,  within four months. 6. We make it clear that while passing the orders, as above, the Appointing Authority will also verify whether there was involvement of the respondent in any  other  criminal  case,  his  age  at  the  time  of incident, his conduct during the period of service and also the fact that he has served for around five years under the CRPF. 7. The impugned judgment is set aside. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

6

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

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

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

NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER 15, 2017.

7