Supreme Court reinstates Constable after discharge for non-disclosure of trivial case: Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India (2 May 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 2 May 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 471
Judges: Hon’ble Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna.

Can a government employer automatically discharge an employee for not disclosing a past criminal case, even if it was minor and resulted in an acquittal? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case involving a constable recruit. The court examined whether the non-disclosure of a trivial criminal case, which ended in an honorable acquittal, could justify the discharge of the selected candidate from service. The bench comprised Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna, who delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The appellant, Pawan Kumar, applied for the position of Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF) in response to an employment notice published on 27 February 2011. He successfully cleared the written examination on 23 June 2013, and the physical efficiency test on 12 June 2014. After his final selection, he was sent for training. However, during his training, he was discharged on 24 April 2015. The discharge was based on clause 9(f) of the employment notice and Rule 67.2 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987.

The reason cited for his discharge was that he had failed to disclose a criminal case against him in the attestation form submitted on 27 May 2014. The case, FIR No. 75, was registered on 4 April 2011, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 506, and 356 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Although a charge sheet was filed on 13 April 2011, and charges were framed on 7 July 2011, the appellant was honorably acquitted on 12 August 2011. The respondents argued that by answering “No” to questions about prior arrests or prosecutions in the attestation form, the appellant had suppressed material information.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Clause 9(f) of the employment notice no.1/2011 dated 27th February, 2011, and Rule 67.2 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. Clause 9(f) states:

“Candidates found to be having adverse report on their antecedents and character may not be appointed in RPF including RPSF. False declaration is an offence under the law and will lead to disqualification of the applicant, institution of criminal case and also dismissal from service, if appointed. Hence, applicants are advised to be careful while filling in the application.”

Rule 52 of the RPF Rules, 1987, also plays a crucial role:

“Rule 52/VERIFICATION:
52.1 As soon as a recruit is selected but before he is formally appointed to the Force, his character and antecedents shall be got verified in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Central Government from time to time.
52.2 Where after verification, a recruit is not found suitable for the Force, he shall not be appointed as a member of the Force.”

Rule 52 mandates that the character and antecedents of a recruit must be verified before formal appointment. If the recruit is deemed unsuitable after verification, they cannot be appointed. The Supreme Court also considered the implications of suppression of information in the attestation form, which is a standard practice for government recruitments.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the criminal case against him was registered after he had submitted his application form. Therefore, he had not suppressed any information at the time of application.
• He contended that the criminal case was of a trivial nature, and he was honorably acquitted by the court.
• The appellant emphasized that the complainant himself had submitted an affidavit stating that the complaint was lodged due to a misunderstanding.
• He argued that the respondents had failed to consider the nature of the post and the duties he was to perform while deciding on his suitability.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the appellant had suppressed material information by answering “No” to questions about prior arrests or prosecutions in the attestation form.
• They contended that the suppression of information itself was a valid ground for discharge, as per clause 9(f) of the employment notice.
• The respondents relied on the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, which mandate verification of character and antecedents before appointment.
• The respondents cited the judgment in Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and another v. Anil Kanwariya [2021] 10 SCC 136 to support their decision.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the non-disclosure of a criminal case, which was registered after the submission of the application form, could be considered a suppression of material information.
2. Whether the nature of the criminal case and the fact that the appellant was honorably acquitted should have been taken into account by the respondents.
3. Whether the respondents had acted arbitrarily in discharging the appellant, without considering the guidelines laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Cases:

• Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471 – The Supreme Court referred to this three-judge bench decision, which laid down guidelines for dealing with cases of suppression of material information or disclosure of false information. The Court emphasized that the employer must consider the nature of the post, the nature of duties, and the effect of suppression on suitability. It also stated that not every technical or trivial matter should be considered as suppression of material information. The Court highlighted that the employer must act objectively and reasonably, and that a chance of reformation should be afforded to young offenders in suitable cases.
• Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and another v. Anil Kanwariya (2021) 10 SCC 136 – The Court distinguished this case, noting that in that case, the employee was convicted before submitting the application form and had not disclosed this fact. In the present case, the criminal case was registered after the application was submitted, and the appellant was honorably acquitted.

Legal Provisions:

• Clause 9(f) of the employment notice no.1/2011 dated 27th February, 2011: This clause states that candidates with adverse reports on their antecedents may not be appointed, and false declarations can lead to disqualification.
• Rule 52 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987: This rule mandates the verification of character and antecedents of recruits before formal appointment.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the High Court and the discharge orders. The Court held that the discharge of the appellant was not sustainable.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Avtar Singh v. Union of India [2016] 8 SCC 471* and held that the employer must consider the nature of the post, the nature of duties, and the effect of suppression on suitability.
• The Court distinguished Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and another v. Anil Kanwariya [2021] 10 SCC 136*, stating that it was not applicable to the facts of the present case.
• The Court acknowledged Clause 9(f) of the employment notice and Rule 52 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, but emphasized that these should not be applied mechanically.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors:

• The fact that the criminal case was registered after the appellant had submitted his application form.
• The trivial nature of the criminal case and the fact that it did not involve moral turpitude.
• The appellant’s honorable acquittal in the criminal case.
• The failure of the respondents to consider the guidelines laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India.
• The need to ensure that employers do not act arbitrarily when dealing with cases of non-disclosure of information.
• The Court noted that the authority had not applied its mind and just after reproduction of facts, confirmed the order of discharge.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s reasoning was based on a careful consideration of the facts of the case and the applicable legal principles. The Court emphasized that the employer must act objectively and reasonably, and that a chance of reformation should be afforded to young offenders in suitable cases. The court also observed that the authority had not applied its mind and just after reproduction of facts, confirmed the order of discharge.

Logical Reasoning Flowchart:

The Court considered that the respondents did not apply the guidelines laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and mechanically confirmed the discharge order. The Court quoted from the judgment:

“What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen.”

The Court also stated:

“At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service.”

The Court emphasized that:

“mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service.”

The Court held that the judgment in Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and another v. Anil Kanwariya was not applicable to the facts of the present case.

Key Takeaways

• Employers cannot automatically discharge an employee for non-disclosure of a criminal case if the case was registered after the application and was trivial in nature, and resulted in an honorable acquittal.
• Employers must consider the nature of the post, the nature of duties, and the effect of suppression on suitability.
• Employers must act objectively and reasonably, and a chance of reformation should be afforded to young offenders in suitable cases.
• The guidelines laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India must be followed when dealing with cases of non-disclosure of information.
• The verification process should be carried out objectively, and the nature of the case should be taken into consideration.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondents to reinstate the appellant in service on the post of Constable. The Court clarified that the appellant would not be entitled to arrears of salary for the period he did not serve, but would be entitled to all notional benefits, including pay, seniority, and other consequential benefits. The necessary orders were to be passed within one month from the date of the judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There are no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the mere suppression of information about a trivial criminal case, which was registered after the application and resulted in an honorable acquittal, cannot be a ground for automatic discharge from service. The judgment reinforces the principles laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, emphasizing the need for objective assessment and consideration of the nature of the post and the offense. This case clarifies that employers must not act arbitrarily and must consider the specific facts and circumstances of each case before taking action against an employee for non-disclosure of information.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India provides significant relief to the appellant, who was discharged for not disclosing a trivial criminal case that occurred after his application and ended in an honorable acquittal. The Court emphasized that employers must act objectively and reasonably, considering the specific facts of each case and the guidelines laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India. This judgment reinforces the principle that not every non-disclosure warrants termination and that a balanced approach considering the nature of the offense and the employee’s suitability is necessary.