Supreme Court clarifies rules on termination for criminal history: Union of India vs. Amit Singh (2017)

Date of the Judgment: November 15, 2017
Citation: Civil Appeal No(s). 18799/2017 (Arising from SLP(C) No.4757/2014)
Judges: Kurian Joseph, J. and R. Banumathi, J.
Can an employer terminate an employee’s service based on a past criminal case, even if it was a minor issue resolved before employment? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Amit Singh. The court examined the legality of terminating an employee for involvement in a criminal case that was resolved before they joined the service. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R. Banumathi, with Justice Kurian Joseph authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves Amit Singh, the respondent, who was terminated from his service after three years of employment. The termination was based on the discovery that he had been involved in a criminal case before his employment. This information came to light during a verification of his antecedents. According to the respondent, the criminal case was a minor incident that occurred during a cricket match with friends. The issue was resolved by the Magistrate. The respondent claimed that this incident occurred before he applied for the job.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The respondent challenged his termination before the High Court. A Single Judge of the High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, finding the termination illegal. This decision was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Union of India, the employer, then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to its previous judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, which provides guidelines on the issue of termination based on suppression of information regarding criminal cases. The relevant points from the judgment in Avtar Singh are 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.”
• “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 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 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 suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.”

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Appellants (Union of India):

• The appellants argued that the respondent’s termination was justified because he had suppressed information about his involvement in a criminal case.
• They contended that it is the duty of the employee to disclose all material information.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondent (Amit Singh):

• The respondent argued that the criminal case was a minor issue that occurred during a cricket match with friends.
• He stated that the matter was compounded by the Magistrate, indicating it was not a serious offense.
• The respondent claimed that the incident happened before he applied for the job, and therefore, should not be a ground for termination.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in this judgment. However, the core issue before the court was:

• Whether the termination of the respondent was justified based on the suppression of information about a prior criminal case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court dealt with the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:

• Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 – Supreme Court of India: This case laid down the principles regarding the effect of suppression of information about criminal cases on employment.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The court relied on Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471* and specifically referred to paragraph 38.4.1 of the judgment. The court used this to guide the Appointing Authority in reconsidering the case. The court emphasized that the authority should consider the nature of the offense and the circumstances of the case while deciding on the representation.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to provide a fair opportunity to the respondent to present his case before the Appointing Authority. The court emphasized that the nature and circumstances of the criminal case, along with the respondent’s service record, should be considered before making a final decision on his termination.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered that the respondent should be given a chance to explain his position and that the Appointing Authority should take a holistic view of the facts before making a final decision. The court’s reasoning was based on the principles of natural justice and the need for a fair process.

The court did not discuss any alternative interpretations or reject any specific legal points. It primarily focused on applying the principles laid down in Avtar Singh to the specific facts of this case.

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court. The court directed that the respondent should be allowed to file a representation before the Appointing Authority. It also directed the Appointing Authority to pass a speaking order after giving the respondent a hearing. The Appointing Authority was also asked to verify whether the respondent was involved in any other criminal case, his age at the time of the incident, his conduct during the period of service, and the fact that he has served for around five years under the CRPF.

The court stated:

• “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.”
• “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.”
• “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.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Employers must consider the nature of the offense and the circumstances of the case when deciding on termination based on prior criminal history.
• Employees should be given a fair opportunity to explain their position before any action is taken.
• The principles laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, must be followed when dealing with cases of suppression of information about criminal cases.
• The court emphasized that a holistic view of the facts, including the employee’s service record, should be considered.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The respondent should be permitted to file a representation before the Appointing Authority.
• The Appointing Authority should pass a speaking order on the representation after giving the respondent a hearing, within four months.
• The Appointing Authority should also verify whether there was involvement of the respondent in any other criminal case, his age at the time of the incident, his conduct during the period of service, and the fact that he has served for around five years under the CRPF.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when an employee is terminated for suppressing information about a prior criminal case, the employer must consider the nature of the offense, the circumstances of the case, and the employee’s service record. This case reinforces the principles laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, and provides a practical application of those principles.

Conclusion

In Union of India & Ors. vs. Amit Singh, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and directed the Appointing Authority to reconsider the case of the terminated employee. This decision emphasizes the need for a fair process and a holistic view of the facts when dealing with cases of suppression of information about criminal cases. The court’s decision reinforces the principles laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, and ensures that employers consider all relevant factors before terminating an employee’s service.