Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal for Suppressing Criminal Case Information: Union of India vs. Dilip Kumar Mallick (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 5, 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 383
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh. This was a two-judge bench, with the judgment authored by Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.

Can an employee be dismissed for not disclosing a pending criminal case during their employment verification? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) employee. The court examined whether the employee’s failure to mention a pending criminal case in his verification roll justified his removal from service. This case highlights the importance of transparency and honesty in the employment process, particularly in sensitive sectors like law enforcement.

The core issue revolved around the respondent, a CRPF employee, who had a criminal case pending against him when he filled out his employment verification form. He did not disclose this information. The Supreme Court had to determine whether this non-disclosure was a valid ground for his dismissal, especially considering he was later acquitted in the criminal case.

Case Background

In 2003, Dilip Kumar Mallick was appointed to the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in Bhubaneswar. However, prior to his appointment, in 2001, he was involved in a criminal case at Kendrapara Police Station, charged under Sections 341, 323, 294, 337, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A chargesheet was filed against him on 01.12.2001. While this case was pending, Mallick filled out his employment verification roll but did not disclose the pending criminal case.

The CRPF initiated a departmental inquiry against Mallick for suppressing the fact of the pending criminal case. The Disciplinary Authority found him guilty and ordered his removal from service. Mallick’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 31.07.2009.

Mallick then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa, which was initially allowed, directing the Appellate Authority to reconsider the matter in light of a previous Supreme Court judgment. However, the Appellate Authority again upheld the dismissal. Mallick then filed another writ petition which led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Disciplinary Authority ordered the removal of the respondent from service, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority. The High Court of Orissa initially directed the Appellate Authority to reconsider the case, but the Appellate Authority again upheld the dismissal. The High Court Division Bench then partially overturned the Single Judge’s order, stating the punishment was too harsh and directed the authorities to impose a lesser punishment. This order was then challenged before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the principles of disclosure and honesty in employment verification, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in previous judgments. The relevant legal provisions include:

• Sections 341, 323, 294, 337, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code: These sections pertain to offences of wrongful restraint, voluntarily causing hurt, obscene acts, causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others, and criminal intimidation, respectively. Section 34 deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• The judgment also refers to previous judgments of the Supreme Court, particularly Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others : (2016) 8 SCC 471, which established the principles regarding the consequences of suppressing information about criminal cases during employment verification.
• The judgment also refers to Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar : (2011) 4 SCC 644, which was considered by the High Court.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Union of India):

• The appellants argued that the respondent’s suppression of information about the pending criminal case was a serious misconduct.
• They contended that providing false information or suppressing material facts in the verification roll is a serious matter and cannot be viewed lightly.
• The appellants relied on the 3-Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra), which held that suppression of material facts could lead to termination of services.
• The appellants argued that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in interfering with the punishment of removal from service.

Arguments by the Respondent (Dilip Kumar Mallick):

• The respondent argued that he did not intentionally suppress any information.
• He stated that he did not fill in the relevant column of the verification roll as he was unaware of the case’s pendency, claiming that the matter had been settled in the village.
• The respondent argued that he was honourably acquitted in the criminal case, which was of a petty nature, and that the punishment of removal from service was too harsh.
• The respondent relied on Avtar Singh (supra), arguing that the employer could ignore the suppression of facts in trivial cases where the employee was ultimately acquitted, and there was no ill-intent.
• He pleaded for leniency, citing his humble background and family responsibilities.

The innovativeness of the argument by the respondent was his reliance on the fact that he was acquitted, and the case was trivial in nature, and hence, the employer should ignore the suppression of facts.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded to the respondent?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India and set aside the High Court’s order that had directed the imposition of a lesser punishment. The Supreme Court held that the respondent’s suppression of material facts was a serious misconduct that justified his removal from service.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the gravity of suppressing material information during the employment verification process. The Court emphasized that honesty and transparency are crucial, particularly in sensitive positions like those in the CRPF. The fact that the respondent had a pending criminal case, which he failed to disclose, was considered a serious breach of trust.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal principles established in Avtar Singh (supra), which emphasized the importance of truthful disclosure and the employer’s right to terminate services for non-disclosure. While the factual aspects of the case, such as the respondent’s acquittal, were considered, the legal principles were given greater weight in the decision.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Suppression of material information in employment verification forms is a serious misconduct that can lead to dismissal, even if the employee is later acquitted in the criminal case.
• ✓ Employers are not obliged to ignore non-disclosure of pending criminal cases, even if the cases are considered trivial.
• ✓ The principles laid down in Avtar Singh (supra) regarding disclosure and honesty in employment verification continue to be upheld.
• ✓ This judgment reinforces the importance of transparency and honesty in the employment process, particularly in sensitive sectors like law enforcement.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order that had directed the imposition of a lesser punishment and upheld the dismissal of the respondent from service.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that suppression of material information, such as a pending criminal case, during employment verification is a serious misconduct that justifies dismissal from service. This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in Avtar Singh (supra) and clarifies that employers are not obliged to ignore such non-disclosure, even if the case is later settled or the employee is acquitted. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India vs. Dilip Kumar Mallick underscores the importance of honesty and transparency in employment verification. The Court held that suppressing information about a pending criminal case is a serious misconduct that can lead to dismissal, regardless of a later acquittal. This decision reaffirms the principles established in Avtar Singh (supra) and provides clarity on the employer’s rights in such situations.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law
Child Categories:

• Employment Verification
• Suppression of Information
• Departmental Inquiry
• Punishment for Misconduct
• Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Categories:

• Section 341, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 294, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 337, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: Can I be fired for not disclosing a past criminal case during my job application?
A: Yes, if the case was pending at the time of your application and you did not disclose it, your employer may terminate your services, even if you are later acquitted.

Q: What if the criminal case was minor and I was later acquitted?
A: Even if the case was minor or you were later acquitted, your employer is not obliged to ignore the fact that you did not disclose it during your job application.

Q: Does this apply to all types of jobs?
A: While this case specifically involves the CRPF, the principles of honesty and transparency apply to all types of employment, especially in sensitive sectors.

Q: What should I do if I have a pending criminal case during my job application?
A: It is always advisable to be truthful and transparent. Disclose all pending criminal cases in your application to avoid future complications.

Q: What is the significance of the Avtar Singh case in this judgment?
A: The Avtar Singh case established the principles that non-disclosure of material information is a serious matter and can lead to termination of services. This judgment reinforces those principles.