Union Of India vs Amit Singh

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.

Signature Not Verified 3. According to the learned counsel for the Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2017.11.20 14:30:00 IST Reason: 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