Supreme Court Directs Reconsideration of Termination for Suppression of Criminal Case: Avtar Singh vs. Union of India (2017)

Date of the Judgment: 15 November 2017

Citation: Civil Appeal No(s). 18798/2017 (Arising from SLP(C) No.20525/2011)

Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., R. Banumathi, J.

Can an employer terminate an employee’s service for not disclosing a past criminal case, especially if the employee was later acquitted? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India. The court examined the circumstances under which an employer can take action against an employee for suppressing information about a criminal case. This judgment emphasizes the need for a balanced approach, considering the nature of the offense and the specific circumstances of each case. The bench comprised Justices Kurian Joseph and R. Banumathi.

Case Background

The appellant, Avtar Singh, was enlisted for appointment in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on 24 August 1994. He submitted a verification form on 9 December 1994, where he left the column regarding involvement in any criminal case blank. It was later discovered that an FIR had been registered against him on 28 October 1992, under Sections 323, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was acquitted on 2 May 1994. However, an appeal against his acquittal was pending when his services were terminated.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the principles of service law and the employer’s right to terminate services for suppression of information. The Supreme Court refers to its previous judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, which provides guidelines on this issue. The relevant points from the judgment are:

• ✓ Information provided by a candidate about convictions, acquittals, arrests, or pending criminal cases must be truthful.
• ✓ Employers may consider the special circumstances of a case while deciding on termination or cancellation of candidature.
• ✓ Employers must follow government orders, instructions, and rules applicable to the employee.
• ✓ In cases of suppression or false information about a criminal case where a conviction or acquittal has already been recorded, employers may take appropriate action.
• ✓ For trivial cases with a recorded conviction, the employer may ignore the suppression of fact.
• ✓ If the conviction is not trivial, the employer may cancel candidature or terminate services.
• ✓ If acquittal is on technical grounds or with the benefit of doubt, the employer may consider all relevant facts before deciding on the employee’s continuance.
• ✓ Even if the employee truthfully declares a concluded criminal case, the employer can still consider antecedents.
• ✓ If a criminal case of a trivial nature is pending, the employer may appoint the candidate subject to the case’s outcome.
• ✓ Deliberate suppression of facts about multiple pending cases can lead to cancellation of candidature or termination.
• ✓ If a criminal case was pending but unknown to the candidate, the employer will consider the seriousness of the crime.
• ✓ For confirmed employees, a departmental inquiry is necessary before termination for suppression of information.
• ✓ Attestation/verification forms must be specific, and action cannot be taken on information not specifically asked for.
• ✓ Knowledge of the fact must be attributable to the person for them to be held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi.

Arguments

The appellant argued that the omission to mention the criminal case was unintentional and that he had been acquitted before joining the CRPF. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the appellant had deliberately suppressed the information about the criminal case, which was a serious matter, and justified the termination of his services. The respondents relied on the principle that an employer has the right to expect honesty and integrity from its employees, and suppression of facts is a breach of that trust.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the termination of the appellant’s service was justified given the circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that he had been acquitted in the criminal case but had not disclosed it in the verification form. The court also considered the guidelines laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, regarding the employer’s discretion in such matters.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court primarily relied on its previous judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, which laid down guidelines on the issue of termination of service for suppression of information. The court also considered the relevant principles of service law and the employer’s right to expect honesty and integrity from its employees. The court did not cite any other cases or books.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need for a balanced approach in cases of suppression of information. The Court emphasized that while an employer has the right to expect honesty and integrity from its employees, termination should not be an automatic consequence of suppression of facts. The Court took into account the fact that the appellant had been acquitted, although an appeal was pending, and that the omission may not have been deliberate. The judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, provided the framework for the Court’s reasoning. The Court’s focus was on ensuring that the Appointing Authority considers all relevant facts and circumstances before making a final decision.

The Court did not explicitly reject any alternative interpretations. Instead, it emphasized the need to apply the guidelines in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, which allows for consideration of the specific circumstances of each case. The final decision was to direct the Appointing Authority to reconsider the case, taking into account the facts and the law.

The Supreme Court’s decision was that the Appointing Authority should reconsider the case of the appellant in light of the law laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, and the subsequent developments pertaining to the order passed in the appeal. The Court directed that a speaking order should be passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

The Court quoted from Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, stating: “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.”

The Court further quoted, “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.”

The Court also noted, “Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.”

There were no majority or minority opinions in this case. The bench was unanimous in its decision.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Termination of service for suppression of information about a criminal case is not automatic.
• ✓ Employers must consider the specific circumstances of each case, including the nature of the offense and whether the employee was acquitted.
• ✓ The guidelines laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, must be followed.
• ✓ A departmental inquiry is necessary before terminating a confirmed employee for suppression of information.
• ✓ Employers must give a hearing to the employee before passing order of termination.

This judgment could potentially impact future cases by reinforcing the need for a balanced approach in cases of suppression of information. It emphasizes that employers must consider the specific facts and circumstances of each case, rather than applying a blanket rule of termination. This may lead to more nuanced decisions in similar cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Appointing Authority to reconsider the case of the appellant in light of the law laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, and the subsequent developments pertaining to the order passed in appeal. The Court also directed that a speaking order be passed and that the appellant be given an opportunity of hearing. The Appointing Authority was directed to pass orders within four months of receiving the representation from the appellant.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the termination of service for suppression of information about a criminal case is not automatic and that the employer must consider the specific circumstances of each case, including the nature of the offense, whether the employee was acquitted, and the guidelines laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471. This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in the Avtar Singh case and does not change any previous positions of law but clarifies the application of the law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court directed the Appointing Authority to reconsider the termination of Avtar Singh’s services. The Court emphasized that termination for suppression of information should not be automatic and that the specific circumstances of each case must be considered, following the guidelines laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471. This judgment underscores the importance of a balanced approach in service law matters.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law
Child Categories: Termination of Service, Suppression of Information, Criminal Case, Avtar Singh v. Union of India

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Categories: Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: Can an employer terminate my job if I didn’t mention a past criminal case on my application?
A: Not necessarily. The Supreme Court has said that employers must consider the specific circumstances of each case. If you were acquitted, the employer should take that into account.

Q: What if I forgot to mention a minor criminal case?
A: The employer may ignore the omission if the case was trivial. However, it is always best to be truthful.

Q: What if I was convicted in a criminal case?
A: If the conviction was not for a trivial offense, the employer may terminate your services. However, they must follow the guidelines laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471.

Q: What if I was acquitted on technical grounds?
A: The employer may still consider your antecedents and take appropriate action.

Q: What if I am a confirmed employee?
A: If you are a confirmed employee, the employer must conduct a departmental inquiry before terminating your services for suppression of information.