Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi dated 17th November, 2015, whereby the High Court upheld the order of discharge dated 24th April, 2015, taking recourse to clause 9(f) of the employment notice no.1/2011 dated 27th February, 2011 read with Rule 67.2 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987.
Brief Facts:
The employment notice for appointment to the post of Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF), including Railway Police Special Force (RPSF) came to be published on 27th February, 2011. The appellant being eligible submitted application form and participated in the selection process and after qualifying the written examination followed with physical efficiency test and after his final selection was sent for training. While the appellant was undergoing training, he came to be discharged by an order invoking clause 9(f) of the employment notice no.1/2011 and Rule 67.2 of the RPF Rules 1987. It came on record that at one stage FIR under Sections 148/149/323/506/356 IPC was registered against him. As it was a false case registered against him, the appellant was honourably acquitted by the competent Court of jurisdiction by the judgment dated 12th August, 2011 and this fact, according to the respondent, was not disclosed by him when he filled the attestation form on 27th May, 2014 that he was prosecuted at one stage and this being a case of suppression of information/false declaration in the verification form.
HC’s Decision:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition under judgment impugned dated 17th November, 2015 and that became the subject matter of challenge in appeal before the Supreme Court.
SC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides SC noted that while a recruit is selected and before he is formally appointed, his character/antecedents have to be verified and after due verification if the recruit is found suitable for the post, may be considered for appointment as a member of the force.
SC stated that this cannot be disputed that the candidate who intends to participate in the selection process is always required to furnish correct information relating to his character and antecedents in the verification/attestation form before and after induction into service. It is also equally true that the person who has suppressed the material information or has made false declaration indeed has no unfettered right of seeking appointment or continuity in service, but at least has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to be judiciously exercised by the competent authority in a reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts of the case on hand.
SC relied upon the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others where the Court observed that “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.”
SC stated that “Mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service.”
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “the criminal case indeed was of trivial nature and the nature of post and nature of duties to be discharged by the recruit has never been looked into by the competent authority while examining the overall suitability of the incumbent keeping in view Rule 52 of the Rules 1987 to become a member of the force. In our considered view the order of discharge passed by the competent authority dated 24th April, 2015 is not sustainable and in sequel thereto the judgment passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Delhi does not hold good and deserves to be set aside.”
Case Title: Pawan Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.
Bench: J. Ajay Rastogi J. Sanjiv Khanna
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 3574 OF 2022
Decided on: 2nd May 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
