Full Judgment Text
1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No 893 of 2020
(Arising out of SLP (C) No 3148 of 2020
(Arising out of SLP (C) D No 8200 of 2019)
State of Odisha and Ors .... Appellant(s)
Versus
Gobinda Behera ....Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J
1 Delay condoned.
2 Leave granted.
3 This appeal arises from a judgment and order of a Division Bench of
the High Court of Orissa dated 29 March 2018.
4 The respondent applied for appointment to the post of a Constable in
th
the Odisha State Police in the 6 IR Batallion, Khurda on 29 October 2011.
In response to a query, the respondent specifically stated in his application
that he was not involved in any criminal case. He was appointed on 14
December 2011. A verification roll was provided to him, which was to be
Signature Not Verified
filled up in terms of Rule 673 of the Orissa Police Rules. On 22 May 2012,
Digitally signed by
SANJAY KUMAR
Date: 2020.02.04
17:05:30 IST
Reason:
the Superintendent of Police, Puri informed the Commandant that during
the course of the verification of the character and antecedents of the
2
respondent, it was found that he was involved in Balanga PS Case No 46
of 2009 under Sections 294/323/324/326/336/337/427/379/506/34 of the
1
Indian Penal Code 1860 . On 6 July 2012, the respondent was called
upon to explain why he had submitted a false statement in the verification
roll and in the application for appointment to the post of Constable. The
respondent was discharged from service on 26 July 2012, upon which he
2
filed a proceeding before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal . The Tribunal
3
rejected the Original Application on the ground that the respondent had
furnished a false declaration. This decision of the Tribunal was reversed
by the High Court, by its impugned judgment. The High Court did so on
4
the basis of a judgment of this Court in Avtar Singh v Union of India
( Avtar Singh ). The High Court held that the Tribunal had not taken note of
the fact that the criminal proceeding had already been quashed and that
the suppression in the circumstances was of a technical and trivial nature.
The authorities were directed to consider the case of the respondent for
reinstatement in his former post and to grant consequential service and
financial benefits.
5 Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant and the respondent, the factual position, which has emerged
before the Court, is that the First Information Report in the criminal case
was lodged on 16 June 2009. The respondent surrendered before the
JMFC on 3 August 2009 and was released on bail in view of an order
dated 28 July 2009 which had been passed by the High Court in Bail
1 “IPC”
2 “Tribunal”
3 “OA”
4 (2016) 8 SCC 471
3
Application 10246 of 2009. The respondent applied for the post of a
Constable thereafter on 29 October 2011 and was appointed on 14
December 2011. The respondent moved the High Court under Section
5
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for quashing the criminal
proceedings. The High Court, by its order dated 22 November 2013,
quashed the criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise between
the parties. This was after the order of discharge from service on 26 July
2012.
6 The position in law has been considered by this Court in a decision of
a three-Judge Bench in Avtar Singh . The summary of the conclusions is
contained in the following extract:
“38.1. 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.
38.2. 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.
38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the
government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the
employee, at the time of taking the decision.
38.4. 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 recourses
appropriate to the case may be adopted:
38.4.1. 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.
5 “CrPC”
4
38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is
not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or
terminate services of the employee.
38.4.3. 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.
38.5. 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.
38.6. 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.
38.7. 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.
38.8. 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 appointing authority would take
decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
38.9. 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.
38.10. 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.
38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or
suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to
him.”
5
7 The respondent was seeking public employment in the State police
service. His duties, on appointment to the service, would be of a
responsible character, bearing intrinsically on the maintenance of law and
order and with consequences for personal liberty of citizens. To expect
that an applicant for such a position would be truthful in the disclosure of
information sought about the antecedents is a justifiable basis for
assessment of personality and character. The employer can legitimately
conclude that a person who has suppressed material facts does not
deserve to be in its employment.
8 In the present case, the case against the respondent cannot be
regarded as being trivial in nature. That apart, it is evident that, despite
being involved in the criminal case, the respondent suppressed these facts
from the authorities while applying for the post of a Constable in the State
Police. The criminal case was quashed in exercise of the jurisdiction
under Section 482 of CrPC on the basis of a compromise between the
parties much after the order of discharge. Hence, the view which has been
taken by the High Court is palpably unsustainable. The Tribunal was
justified in rejecting the application.
9 We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned
judgment and order of the High Court dated 29 March 2018. While
6
maintaining the order of the Tribunal, we order and direct that the OA filed
by the respondent shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
…………...…...….......………………........J.
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]
…..…..…....…........……………….…........J.
[K M Joseph]
New Delhi;
January 31, 2020
7
ITEM NO.47 COURT NO.7 SECTION XI-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 8200/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29-03-2018
in WPC No. 21868/2015 passed by the High Court of Orissa at
Cuttack)
STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
GOBINDA BEHERA Respondent(s)
(WITH I.R. and IA No.46018/2019-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and
IA No.46026/2019-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 31-01-2020 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR
Mr. S. Debabrata Reddy, Adv.
Mr. Chandan Kumar Mandal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Azim H. Laskar, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Das, Adv.
Mr. Adtiya Kumar Archiya, Adv.
Ms. Sampa Sengupta Ray, Adv.
Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed
reportable judgment. There shall be no order as to
costs.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
8