LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employer can terminate an employee for suppressing information about a prior conviction and submitting a false declaration during the appointment process, even if the employee later receives the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and another vs. Anil Kanwariya
Judgment Date: 17 September 2021
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 17 September 2021
Citation: 2021 INSC 600
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and A.S. Bopanna, J.
Can an employee be terminated for not disclosing a past criminal conviction and submitting a false declaration during the hiring process? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and one of its employees. This judgment clarifies the importance of honesty and transparency in employment applications, particularly regarding criminal history.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, delivered the judgment. Justice M.R. Shah authored the opinion.
Case Background
In October 2013, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (the employer) advertised for the position of Technical Helper. Anil Kanwariya (the employee) applied for the post. He was subsequently appointed as a Technical Helper on probation on 6 May 2015. A condition of his appointment was a character verification report from the Superintendent of Police of his district.
The police verification report revealed that the employee had been convicted in 2013 for offences under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Though he was given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, he had not disclosed this conviction in his application or during document verification on 14 April 2015. Instead, he declared that no criminal cases were pending against him and that he had not been convicted by any court.
The employer issued a show-cause notice on 31 August 2015, and after hearing the employee, terminated his services on 6 May 2016 for suppressing material facts and submitting a false declaration.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| October 2013 | Employer advertised for the post of Technical Helper. |
| 17 January 2011 | Chargesheet filed against the employee for offences under Sections 143, 341, 323 IPC. |
| 5 August 2013 | Trial Court convicted the employee under Sections 341 and 323 IPC, granting benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. |
| October/November 2013 | Employee applied for the post of Technical Helper. |
| 2 February 2014 | Written test held for the post. |
| 31 March 2015 | Result of the written test declared. |
| 14 April 2015 | Employee submitted a declaration during document verification stating no criminal cases were pending against him and that he had not been convicted. |
| 6 May 2015 | Employee appointed as Technical Helper on probation. |
| 5 June 2015 | Police verification report revealed the employee’s prior conviction. |
| 31 August 2015 | Employer issued a show-cause notice to the employee. |
| 11 August 2015 | Employee filed an appeal before the Sessions Court. |
| 9 September 2015 | Sessions Court granted the employee the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. |
| 6 May 2016 | Employer terminated the employee’s services. |
| 23 January 2019 | Single Judge of the High Court quashed the termination order. |
| 5 September 2019 | Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Single Judge’s order. |
| 17 September 2021 | Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and upheld the termination. |
Course of Proceedings
The employee challenged his termination before a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. The Single Judge, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Avtar Singh v. Union of India [(2016) 8 SCC 471] and the Sessions Court’s order granting the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, quashed the termination order and directed reinstatement with all benefits.
The employer appealed to the Division Bench of the High Court, which also relied on Avtar Singh and observed that the dispute was of a trivial nature. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the Single Judge’s decision, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case involves the following legal provisions:
- Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): These sections deal with punishment for wrongful restraint and voluntarily causing hurt, respectively.
- Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly.
- The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958:
- Section 3: Provides for the release of offenders on probation for good conduct.
- Section 4: Empowers the court to release certain offenders on probation.
- Section 12: States that a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of Section 3 or 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law.
Arguments
Arguments by the Employer (Appellants):
- The employee suppressed the fact of his conviction at the time of application in 2013 and again during document verification on 14 April 2015.
- The benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, was granted only on 9 September 2015, after the employee had already submitted a false declaration.
- The High Court erred in considering the subsequent order of the Sessions Court granting the benefit of Section 12.
- The employee’s initial suppression of facts and fraudulent acquisition of employment raises questions about his trustworthiness, reliability, and credibility.
- The employer is justified in terminating the services of an employee who has suppressed material facts.
- The observations of the Division Bench that the dispute was trivial and could have been ignored by the employer are irrelevant.
- Relied on cases such as Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav [(2003) 3 SCC 437], Secretary, Department of Home Secretary, A.P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu [(2005) 2 SCC 746], Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India [(2010) 14 SCC 103], Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P. [(2012) 8 SCC 748], Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal [(2013) 9 SCC 363], and State of M.P. v. Abhijit Singh Pawar [(2018) 18 SCC 733].
Arguments by the Employee (Respondent):
- The High Court’s decision was in line with the Supreme Court’s judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, particularly paragraph 38.4.1.
- The omission to disclose the conviction was not intentional or deliberate but was due to a bonafide belief that the benefit granted under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, meant he had not incurred any disqualification.
- The employer did not consider the extenuating circumstances and the benefits granted under Sections 3 and 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
- Relied on cases such as T.S. Vasudavan Nair v. Director of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre [1988 Supp. SCC 795], Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar [(2011) 4 SCC 644], and Avtar Singh v. Union of India [(2016) 8 SCC 471].
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Employer) | Sub-Submissions (Employee) |
|---|---|---|
| Suppression of Material Facts |
✓ Employee did not disclose conviction in 2013 application. ✓ Employee submitted false declaration on 14.04.2015. ✓ Benefit of Section 12 was granted later. |
✓ Omission was not intentional. ✓ Believed no disqualification due to Section 3 benefit. |
| Trust and Credibility |
✓ Initial suppression impacts trustworthiness. ✓ Employer has a right to choose reliable employees. |
✓ Dispute was of a trivial nature. ✓ Employer should consider extenuating circumstances. |
| Application of Law |
✓ High Court erred in relying on subsequent Section 12 benefit. ✓ Relied on precedents supporting termination for false declarations. |
✓ High Court correctly applied Avtar Singh judgment. ✓ Relied on precedents supporting leniency in trivial cases. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the employer was justified in terminating the services of the employee on the ground of suppression of material facts and submitting a false declaration.
- Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the termination order and directing reinstatement of the employee.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the employer was justified in terminating the services of the employee on the ground of suppression of material facts and submitting a false declaration. | Yes | The employee suppressed his conviction and submitted a false declaration, which is sufficient ground for termination. |
| Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the termination order and directing reinstatement of the employee. | No | The High Court erred in relying on the subsequent benefit of Section 12 and in not considering the initial suppression of facts. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
Cases:
- Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav [(2003) 3 SCC 437] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to support the principle that suppression of material facts can lead to termination of service.
- Secretary, Department of Home Secretary, A.P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu [(2005) 2 SCC 746] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that the purpose of seeking information is to verify character and antecedents, and suppression of information is a valid ground for termination.
- Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India [(2010) 14 SCC 103] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to highlight that an employee can be discharged for suppressing material information or making false statements, even if acquitted later.
- Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P. [(2012) 8 SCC 748] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to summarize the principles regarding appointments obtained by misrepresentation or suppression of facts.
- Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal [(2013) 9 SCC 363] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that suppressing information amounts to moral turpitude and can lead to termination.
- State of M.P. v. Abhijit Singh Pawar [(2018) 18 SCC 733] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to reiterate that even with a truthful disclosure, the employer has the right to consider antecedents.
- T.S. Vasudavan Nair v. Director of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre [1988 Supp. SCC 795] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the respondent to argue for leniency, but the court distinguished it.
- Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar [(2011) 4 SCC 644] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the respondent to argue for leniency, but the court distinguished it.
- Avtar Singh v. Union of India [(2016) 8 SCC 471] – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by both parties, but the court held that it supported the employer’s case.
Legal Provisions:
- Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): These sections deal with punishment for wrongful restraint and voluntarily causing hurt, respectively.
- Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly.
- The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958:
- Section 3: Provides for the release of offenders on probation for good conduct.
- Section 4: Empowers the court to release certain offenders on probation.
- Section 12: States that a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer disqualification.
Authority Analysis Table
| Authority | Court | How the Authority was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav [(2003) 3 SCC 437] | Supreme Court of India | Followed to support termination for suppression of facts. |
| Secretary, Department of Home Secretary, A.P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu [(2005) 2 SCC 746] | Supreme Court of India | Followed to emphasize the importance of verifying character. |
| Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India [(2010) 14 SCC 103] | Supreme Court of India | Followed to support termination for false statements. |
| Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P. [(2012) 8 SCC 748] | Supreme Court of India | Followed to summarize principles on misrepresentation. |
| Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal [(2013) 9 SCC 363] | Supreme Court of India | Followed to emphasize that suppression amounts to moral turpitude. |
| State of M.P. v. Abhijit Singh Pawar [(2018) 18 SCC 733] | Supreme Court of India | Followed to reiterate employer’s right to consider antecedents. |
| T.S. Vasudavan Nair v. Director of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre [1988 Supp. SCC 795] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished; not applicable to the current case. |
| Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar [(2011) 4 SCC 644] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished; not applicable to the current case. |
| Avtar Singh v. Union of India [(2016) 8 SCC 471] | Supreme Court of India | Interpreted to support the employer’s right to terminate for non-disclosure. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Party | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Employee suppressed the fact of his conviction at the time of application in 2013 and again during document verification on 14 April 2015. | Employer | Accepted as a valid ground for termination. |
| The benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, was granted only on 9 September 2015, after the employee had already submitted a false declaration. | Employer | Accepted; the subsequent benefit does not negate the initial false declaration. |
| The High Court erred in considering the subsequent order of the Sessions Court granting the benefit of Section 12. | Employer | Accepted; the High Court should not have relied on a subsequent order. |
| The employee’s initial suppression of facts and fraudulent acquisition of employment raises questions about his trustworthiness, reliability, and credibility. | Employer | Accepted; trustworthiness is crucial for employment. |
| The employer is justified in terminating the services of an employee who has suppressed material facts. | Employer | Accepted; employer has the right to terminate in such cases. |
| The observations of the Division Bench that the dispute was trivial and could have been ignored by the employer are irrelevant. | Employer | Accepted; such observations are not germane. |
| The High Court’s decision was in line with the Supreme Court’s judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, particularly paragraph 38.4.1. | Employee | Rejected; Avtar Singh was interpreted to support the employer’s case. |
| The omission to disclose the conviction was not intentional or deliberate but was due to a bonafide belief that the benefit granted under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, meant he had not incurred any disqualification. | Employee | Rejected; the court emphasized the false declaration. |
| The employer did not consider the extenuating circumstances and the benefits granted under Sections 3 and 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. | Employee | Rejected; the court focused on the initial false declaration. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court relied on Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav, Secretary, Department of Home Secretary, A.P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu, Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India, Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P., Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal, and State of M.P. v. Abhijit Singh Pawar to emphasize that suppression of material facts and false declarations are valid grounds for termination. The Court distinguished the cases cited by the employee, stating that those cases were not applicable to the facts of the present case. The court interpreted Avtar Singh v. Union of India to support the employer’s right to terminate for non-disclosure.
“The question is not whether the employee is suitable for the post. The pendency of a criminal case/proceeding is different from suppressing the information of such pendency…suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral turpitude.”
“Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal.”
“Dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have defrauded or misrepresented themselves.”
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the employee’s initial dishonesty in suppressing his conviction and submitting a false declaration. The Court emphasized the importance of trustworthiness and credibility in employment, particularly in government service. The fact that the employee later obtained the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, did not negate his initial act of dishonesty. The Court also considered that the employee had delayed filing the appeal to get the benefit of Section 12, which further weighed against him.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Suppression of Material Fact and False Declaration | 40% |
| Importance of Trust and Credibility | 30% |
| Subsequent Benefit of Section 12 Irrelevant | 20% |
| Delayed Appeal to Obtain Section 12 Benefit | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The court’s reasoning was more heavily influenced by legal principles and precedents (70%) than by the specific facts of the case (30%). The court focused on the legal implications of suppressing information and making false declarations, rather than the nature of the original offense.
Logical Reasoning
Key Takeaways
- Honesty is Paramount: Applicants for employment must be honest and transparent about their criminal history.
- Suppression of Facts: Suppressing material facts, such as a criminal conviction, is a valid ground for termination, even if the employee is later acquitted or given the benefit of probation.
- False Declarations: Submitting a false declaration during the employment process can lead to termination.
- Employer’s Discretion: Employers have the discretion to terminate employees who have suppressed material facts or made false declarations.
- Trust and Credibility: The employer’s trust in an employee is crucial, and any breach of that trust can have serious consequences.
Directions
The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which had set aside the order of termination. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the employee was dismissed, and the order of termination was restored.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There is no discussion of any specific amendments in this judgment.
Development of Law
Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that an employer is justified in terminating the services of an employee who has suppressed material facts about a prior criminal conviction and submitted a false declaration during the appointment process. The subsequent grant of the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, does not negate the initial dishonesty and breach of trust.
This judgment reinforces the importance of honesty and transparency in employment applications and clarifies that employers have the discretion to terminate employees who have engaged in such misconduct. It also clarifies that the benefit under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, does not absolve an employee from the consequences of making false declarations at the time of employment.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited vs. Anil Kanwariya upholds the termination of an employee who suppressed his prior conviction and submitted a false declaration. The Court emphasized the importance of honesty, transparency, and trustworthiness in the employment process. The judgment serves as a reminder that any misrepresentation or suppression of material facts can lead to serious consequences, including termination of employment.