Supreme Court Upholds Termination for False Declaration in Police Job Application: State of Odisha vs. Gobinda Behera (2020) INSC 30

Date of the Judgment: January 31, 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 30
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and K.M. Joseph, J.

Can a person be denied a job in the police force if they lied about their criminal history, even if that case was later resolved? This question was at the heart of a recent Supreme Court case. The Court examined whether the Odisha State Police was right to terminate an employee who failed to disclose his involvement in a criminal case when applying for the job. The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice K.M. Joseph, overturned the High Court’s decision, ruling in favor of the State of Odisha.

Case Background

On October 29, 2011, Gobinda Behera applied for a position as a Constable in the Odisha State Police, specifically within the 6th IR Battalion, Khurda. In his application, he stated that he had no involvement in any criminal case. He was appointed on December 14, 2011. A verification roll, as per Rule 673 of the Orissa Police Rules, was given to him to fill out. However, on May 22, 2012, the Superintendent of Police, Puri, informed the Commandant that during a character and antecedent check, it was discovered that Behera had been involved in Balanga PS Case No 46 of 2009 under Sections 294, 323, 324, 326, 336, 337, 427, 379, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

On July 6, 2012, Behera was asked to explain why he had given a false statement in his application and verification roll. Subsequently, he was discharged from service on July 26, 2012. Behera then approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his application. The High Court of Orissa, however, reversed the Tribunal’s decision, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Avtar Singh v Union of India. The High Court argued that the criminal case had been quashed and the suppression of information was minor.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent, Gobinda Behera, was discharged from service on July 26, 2012, after it was discovered that he had suppressed information about a criminal case. He then filed a case before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed. The High Court of Orissa reversed this decision, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, stating that the criminal proceeding had been quashed and the suppression of information was minor. The State of Odisha then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by the principles laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, which deals with the consequences of providing false information or suppressing facts in employment applications. The Supreme Court in Avtar Singh held that information given to an employer about convictions, acquittals, arrests, or pending criminal cases must be true, and any suppression or false mention of required information can lead to termination of service or cancellation of candidature.

The court also considered the importance of the employer taking into account the government orders, instructions, and rules applicable to the employee at the time of making the decision. The court further clarified that in cases where there has been a suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case, the employer may consider the nature of the case, and if it is trivial, the employer may ignore the suppression. However, if the case is not trivial, the employer may cancel the candidature or terminate the services of the employee.

The Supreme Court also noted that the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, based on a compromise between the parties.

Arguments

The State of Odisha argued that Gobinda Behera had suppressed material facts about his involvement in a criminal case when applying for the position of Constable. The State contended that the nature of the case was not trivial, and therefore, his termination was justified. The State relied on the principles laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India to support its argument.

Gobinda Behera, on the other hand, argued that the criminal case against him had been quashed by the High Court, and therefore, the suppression was of a technical and trivial nature. He contended that the High Court was correct in ordering his reinstatement. He relied on the same judgment of Avtar Singh v. Union of India to support his argument that the employer should consider the special circumstances of the case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the core issue was whether the High Court was correct in reversing the Tribunal’s decision and ordering the reinstatement of Gobinda Behera. This involved determining whether the suppression of information about the criminal case was a trivial matter, and whether the employer was justified in terminating his services.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

✓ Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471 – Supreme Court of India: This case laid down the principles for dealing with suppression of information in employment applications.

Judgment

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

✓ Avtar Singh v. Union of India [ (2016) 8 SCC 471 ]: The Court relied on this case to determine the principles governing suppression of information in employment applications. The Court held that the employer can legitimately conclude that a person who has suppressed material facts does not deserve to be in its employment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that Gobinda Behera had suppressed material information about his involvement in a criminal case while applying for a position in the State Police. The Court emphasized that the duties of a police officer are of a responsible character, bearing on the maintenance of law and order and the personal liberty of citizens. Therefore, the Court found that it was justifiable for the employer to expect truthfulness from applicants.

The Court also considered that the criminal case against Behera was not trivial. The fact that the criminal proceedings were quashed based on a compromise between the parties, and not on the merits of the case, further weighed against him.

The Court rejected the argument that the suppression was trivial, stating that the criminal case was not of a trivial nature. The Court also noted that the criminal case was quashed based on a compromise between the parties, not on the merits of the case. The Court held that “The employer can legitimately conclude that a person who has suppressed material facts does not deserve to be in its employment.”

The Court also emphasized that “To expect that an applicant for such a position would be truthful in the disclosure of information sought about the antecedents is a justifiable basis for assessment of personality and character.” The Court concluded that “the view which has been taken by the High Court is palpably unsustainable. The Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Applicants for public service, especially in law enforcement, must be truthful in disclosing their criminal history.
• ✓ Suppression of material facts, even if the criminal case is later resolved, can lead to termination of service.
• ✓ The nature of the criminal case is a crucial factor; trivial cases may be overlooked, but serious cases cannot be ignored.
• ✓ Quashing of a criminal case based on a compromise does not automatically negate the impact of suppressing the information.

Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and maintained the order of the Tribunal, dismissing the original application filed by Gobinda Behera.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an applicant for a public service job, particularly in law enforcement, must be truthful in disclosing their criminal history. Suppression of material facts, even if the criminal case is later resolved, can lead to termination of service. The case reinforces the principles laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, emphasizing the importance of truthfulness and integrity in public employment. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Odisha vs. Gobinda Behera underscores the importance of honesty and transparency in public employment applications, particularly in law enforcement. The Court held that the suppression of material facts by Gobinda Behera justified his termination, even though the criminal case against him was later quashed. This decision reinforces the principle that employers have a right to expect truthfulness from applicants and that suppression of information can have serious consequences.