The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the appeal which set aside the termination order of the respondent because of non-disclosure. The court observed that the only information sought in the attestation form for character verification was whether the respondent herein was convicted or not at the time of filling up the verification and since the respondent was not convicted, he chose not to give any detail and it is settled position of law that mere registration of an FIR is no ground to dismiss the respondent from service.
Brief Facts:
The respondent had applied for the position for the post of Conductor and was successful in the selection process and was accordingly appointed. In his attestation form about the character verification, the respondent in the question asking if he had been convicted by any court had answered in negative. However, on character verification, it was found that an FIR was registered against him. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent in terms of clause 9 of the appointment letter alleging that there was non-disclosure about the fact that a criminal case had been filed against the respondent and therefore, there was concealment. The respondent responded to the show cause notice but his services were terminated. His appeal against this termination order was allowed by a single judge.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that a person seeking appointment in a government job is duty bound to disclose all material facts about the pendency of criminal proceedings against him/her and the services of the respondents were rightfully terminated under Clause 9 of the appointment letter.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that there has been no misrepresentation or concealment of any particular fact at his end and he was offered the job as he was meritorious and continued to work till such time he was issued a show cause notice and thereafter, his services were terminated by invoking clause 9 of the appointment letter. It was further argued that the appellants failed to consider that on the date, he filled in his attestation form for character verification and had not been convicted by any court and was convicted after five years and in the appeal preferred against said conviction he stood acquitted.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that before passing the termination order, appellants should have considered the fact that the respondent was implicated in the FIR in question, which was registered owing to a dispute between the respondent and his family with neighbours.
The court further observed that the most important factor, which an employer ought to have taken into consideration is the yardstick/standard, which has to be applied to adjudging the suitability of the incumbent, depending upon the nature of the post and nature of duties and the effect of suppression over suitability is to be considered by the authority on due diligence of various aspects and no hard and fast rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard.
The court referred to the judgement in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India which laid down the guidelines which have to be taken note of by the appointing/competent authority in dealing with matters where there is a suppression of material information or disclosure of false information and held that the exercise of powers to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of an employee.
The court further observed that the only information sought was regarding the conviction of the respondent herein for any offence by the court and admittedly, he was not convicted at that very point in time when he filled in the attestation form and no injuries were attributed to the respondent, he has been acquitted by the Court in appeal. It was further stated that the only information sought in the attestation form for character verification was whether the respondent herein was convicted or not at the time of filling up the verification and since the respondent was not convicted, he chose not to give any detail and it is settled position of law that mere registration of an FIR is no ground to dismiss the respondent from service.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Single Judge.
Case Title: State of Haryana vs. Surender Singh
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jaishree Thakur and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur
Case No.: LPA No.668 of 2020 (O&M)
Advocate for the Applicant: Ms. Shruti Goyal, Sr. DAG, Haryana
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Vivek Sharma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
