The Apex Court dealt with an appeal assailing the impugned judgement of the Division Bench of the High Court wherein the quantum of punishment was intervened in a case pertaining non- disclosure of facts on the relevant column of the verification roll by a CRPF employee. A two- judge Bench of Justice D Maheshwari and Justice M.M. Sunderash held that non- disclosure of facts, especially facts concerning the pendency of a criminal case against the employee is a ground to terminate the services of the employee and therefore requires no interference.
Factual Background
Brief facts of the case were that the respondent was in the year 2003, was appointed under the Central Reserve Police Force (‘CRPF’) Group Centre, Bhubaneswar. During his service, he was alleged of suppressing/ concealing certain facts with respect to an ongoing case against him at Kendrapara Police Station under Sections 341, 323, 294, 337, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was charge-sheeted for the said offences on December 1, 2001. Though the said criminal case was pending before the competent Court, however at the time of filling the verification roll, the respondent did not disclose the same. Consequently, an inquiry was initiated against him and he was awarded a punishment of removal from service by the Disciplinary Authority by observing that an act of such nature is prejudicial to the discipline of CRPF.
The appeal taken up by the respondent was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on July 31, 2009. However, on February 2, 2012 a writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed by the High Court to the extent that the Appellate Authority was directed to reconsider the appeal within two months in light of the judgement of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and Ors. V. Sandeep Kumar.
The Appellate Authority, thereafter, passed a fresh order on 22.08.2012, again dismissing the appeal and refused to intervene with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. The respondent again approached the High Court by way of the writ petition leading to the present appeal. The respondent pleaded that he had not suppressed any information pertaining to the case. As far as the verification roll was concerned, the respondent pleaded that he neither stated “Yes” nor “No” with respect to the criminal case. He also stressed on the fact that he was never arrested or remanded to judicial custody in pursuant to the criminal case. It was further submitted that the respondent was of the view that the matter is settled between the parties in the village and that he was not apprised of the fact that the case is still lying pending before the competent Court and therefore did not mention anything on the verification roll. However the present appellants opposed the writ petition by submitting that the respondent left the relevant column on the verification roll blank, and the fact of not mentioning that a criminal case was pending before a Court was sheer suppression of facts from the side of respondent.
The single- judge of the High Court however did not concede with the submissions of the respondent and concluded that he did not disclose the fact pertaining to the pending criminal case intentionally. The above stated finding of the High Court was challenged by way of intra-appeal and the same was partly allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated March 25, 2019, observing that the quantum of punishment awarded shall be reconsidered by the Appellate Authority. Citing the finding of the Division Bench below:
“In view of the aforesaid settled positions of Law and the facts and circumstances of the present case as to non-supply of required information of which the petitioner-appellant has been found guilty, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the findings reached by the learned Single Judge in that regard”.
It is this impugned order of the High Court that was assailed by the appellants in the form of appeal before the present Court.
Case of the Appellant
The Counsel for the appellant contended that the suppression / concealment of an important fact in the relevant column of verification roll pertaining to the pending criminal case against the respondent depicts his lack of intergity towards the institution and such an act call for a punishment of removal from service which was indeed awarded to the respondent. Therefore, the Counsel for appellant was of the view that an act of such nature calls for a punishment of removal from service which indeed was provided to him by the competent Authority and thus calls for no intervention. Reliance was made on a three- judge Bench case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India.
The counsel for the respondent on the other hand, submitted that the respondent have been working for the appellants since 2009 and there was not even a single incident of complaint. It was further submitted that as far as the criminal case is concerned, the respondent was acquitted in the same by an order and judgment dated May 1, 2008 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Court .It was further submitted that the respondent was charged for offences petty in nature and there were more than 50 persons of the village made party to the case.
Thus, it was submitted that the respondent had no conduct of criminality in the above case and that the respondent had not suppressed any fact to be held guilty for. He was eventually acquitted by the Court and the case was trivial in nature, therefore the punishment awarded in pursuant to the
same is too stringent and harsh and the Division Bench of the High Court was right in its reasoning pertaining to reconsideration of the punishment awarded. Reliance was made to the case of Avtar Singh in view of the same, the Counsel pleaded that “ this being a matter of trivial nature, where the respondent had been honorably acquitted, the employer in its discretion could ignore such alleged suppression of facts, which did not carry the element of any ill-intent on the part of the respondent. Learned counsel has also made a fervent plea for leniency, particularly with reference to the facts that the respondent comes from a humble background and has a family to support”.
Observation of the Court
The Top Court after considering the submissions from both the sides was of the view that the fact concerning the suppression/ concealment of facts by the respondent is not diputable, as the respondent did leave the relevant column in the verification role blank even when he was aware of the fact that a criminal case is lying pending against him. The fact that he surrendered before the Trial Court and was granted bail certainly does not justify his act of suppressing the facts.It
was further observed that Appellate Authority and the High Court was right in their approach of upholding the punishment awarded, moreover the Division Bench also did not debate over the fact that there was intentional non- disclosure of facts. The Court stated that it is pertinent to note, that the Divisional Bench of the High Court only intervened with the quantum of punishment awarded.
By considering the same, the Apex Court refused to intervene with the quantum of punishment and relied to the case of Avtar Singh, “No doubt about it that once verification form requires certain information to be furnished, declaring is duty-bound to furnish it correctly and any suppression of material facts or submitting false information, may by itself lead to termination of his services or cancellation of candidature in an appropriate case. However, in a criminal case the incumbent has not been acquitted and case is pending trial, employer may well be justified in not appointing such an incumbent or in terminating the services as conviction ultimately may render him unsuitable for job and employer is not supposed to wait till outcome of criminal case. In such a case non-disclosure or submitting false information would assume significance and that by itself may be grounds for the employer to cancel candidature or to terminate services”. Some other relevant extracts from the above case were cited to make a vivid finding in the present case.
“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”. The Apex Court observed that as per the Avtar Singh case (supra) the fact that the employee suppresses information pertaining to a pending criminal case in it is a ground to terminate the services of the employees, as is the situation in the present case.
The respondent left the column completely blank despite the fact that he had all the information on his case. It was further observed that in the case of Avtar Singh, there are certain conditions that are stated to deal with non- disclosure of facts, if the offence was of trivial nature like shouting of slogans at a young age then the employer may ignore such suppression of fact or false information depending on the factors as to whether the information, if disclosed, would have rendered incumbent unfit for the post in question.
It was also noted that decision of acquittal by the Trial Court was pronounced on May 1, 2008, having said that respondent was employed in CRPF in 2003, therefore he was well apprised with the fact that a criminal case is pending before him and he still chose to not disclose the same until the department by its own findings became aware of the same. Thus in light of above stated facts and principles, the Apex Court allowed the appeal and refused to intervene with the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court considering the harshness of punishment awarded, the same was set aside by this Court.
Case Details
Before: Supreme Court
Case Title: Union of Iindia and Ors vs. Dillip Kumar Mallick
Coram: Hon’ble Justice D Maheshwari and Justice M.M. Sunderesh
Picture Source : https://government.economictimes.indiatimes.com/