Leading judgment of sc on removal of employee from service o

The fraud and misrepresentation vitiates a transaction and in case
employment has been obtained on the basis of forged documents, as observed in
M. Bhaskaran’s case (supra), it has also been observed in the reference order that if
an appointment was procured fraudulently, the incumbent may be terminated
without holding any inquiry, however we add a rider that in case employee is
confirmed, holding a civil post and has protection of Article 311(2), due inquiry
has to be held before terminating the services. The case of obtaining appointment
on the basis of forged documents has the effect on very eligibility of incumbent for
the job in question, however, verification of antecedents is different aspect as to his
fitness otherwise for the post in question. The fraudulently obtained appointment
orders are voidable at the option of employer, however, question has to be
determined in the light of the discussion made in this order on impact of
suppression or submission of false information.
26. No doubt about it that verification of character and antecedents is one of the
important criteria to assess suitability and it is open to employer to adjudge
antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action should be based upon objective
criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects.
27. Suppression of ‘material’ information presupposes that what is suppressed
that ‘matters’ not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due
consideration of rules/instructions if any in exercise of powers in order to cancel
candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has
suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment
or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and
exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due
regard to facts of cases.
28. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher
post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed
service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of
suppression on suitability has to be considered by concerned authorities
considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due
consideration of various aspects.
29. The ‘McCarthyism’ is antithesis to constitutional goal, chance of
reformation has to be afforded to young offenders in suitable cases, interplay of
reformative theory cannot be ruled out in toto nor can be generally applied but is
one of the factors to be taken into consideration while exercising the power for
cancelling candidature or discharging an employee from service.
30. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as
far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus:
(1) 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.
(2) While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of
candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of
special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.
(3) The employer shall take into consideration the Government
orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking
the decision.
(4) 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 : -
(a) In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been
recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty
offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an
incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its
discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information
by condoning the lapse.
(b) Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial
in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate
services of the employee. 
(c) If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral
turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical
ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of
reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all
relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take
appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.
(5) In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a
concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider
antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
(6) In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification
form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in
facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the
candidate subject to decision of such case.
(7) In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple
pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance
and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or
terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple
criminal cases were pending may not be proper.
(8) If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time
of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointingPage 53
53
authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the
crime.
(9) In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental
enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal
or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information
in verification form.
(10) For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification
form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was
required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information
not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the
same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the
question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on
basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which
was not even asked for.
(11) Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi,
knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIOIN [C] NO.20525/2011
Avtar Singh … Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India & Ors. … Respondents
[With SLP [C] Nos.4757/2014 and 24320/2014]
Dated:July 21, 2016.
ARUN MISHRA, J.

https://www.lawweb.in/2016/07/leading-judgment-of-sc-on-removal-of.html