Avtar Singh vs Union of India

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2017.11.20 14:30:04 IST pending when the termination took place. The High Reason:

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