No knowledge of a criminal case cannot be treated as suppression; termination requires a two-stage assessment, says Supreme Court

The appellant was appointed as a Technician (Process) by the respondent-company on consolidated pay for an initial period of two years.

In his attestation form, he declared that no criminal case was pending against him.

During antecedent verification, the respondents learnt that a Non-Cognizable Report dated 03.04.2019 under Sections 323 and 504 IPC had been registered against him.

A show-cause notice was issued alleging false declaration and suppression of material information.

The appellant denied knowledge of the NCR, stating that he had neither been arrested nor summoned or called to the police station.

He relied on a police character certificate dated 09.07.2020 recording no adverse entry against him.

He subsequently produced a police certificate and final report showing that his name had been deleted from the array of accused after no evidence was found against him.

The respondents terminated his appointment on 05.08.2023.

The Kerala High Court dismissed his writ petition and writ appeal, holding that his alleged lack of knowledge involved disputed questions of fact.

The appellant challenged that decision before the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the appellant had suppressed or furnished false information regarding the pendency of the NCR, when he claimed that he had no knowledge of its registration.

2. Whether, even assuming the existence of a criminal antecedent, termination of the appellant’s employment was legally permissible without considering the nature of the offence, the nature of the post, the outcome of the criminal proceedings, and other relevant circumstances.

3. Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the alleged disputed questions of fact.

The Court applied the principles governing suppression of criminal antecedents laid down by the three-Judge Bench in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471.

The candidate’s declaration regarding conviction, acquittal, arrest, or pendency of a criminal case must be truthful; however, the employer must consider the special circumstances of the case, applicable rules, the nature and seriousness of the offence, the nature of the post, and the eventual outcome of the criminal proceedings before cancelling candidature or terminating employment.

Suppression or false information cannot be established unless knowledge of the relevant fact is attributable to the candidate.

Even where a criminal case was pending but unknown to the candidate, the employer must independently assess its seriousness and its impact on suitability; termination is not automatic.

The Court also relied on Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P., 2024 INSC 131, and Umesh Chandra Yadav v. Inspector General, Railway Protection Force, (2022) 14 SCC 244, which require an objective, non-arbitrary assessment of the nature of the post, the suppression, its impact on suitability, and the circumstances of the case.

The existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, particularly where the legality of the termination order itself is challenged.

The Court held that the enquiry had two stages: first, whether there was actual suppression or false information in light of the appellant’s knowledge at the relevant time; and second, whether the antecedent and alleged suppression justified termination.

On the first stage, the appellant’s consistent denial of knowledge was supported by the 2020 character certificate issued after registration of the NCR, the subsequent police certificate confirming that he had never been summoned, questioned, or arrested, and the deletion of his name after investigation.

The respondents’ assertion that the appellant must have known of the NCR because his parents were also named was held to be speculative and unsupported by evidence.

Since knowledge is a prerequisite to suppression, the appellant could not be held liable for concealing a fact of which he was unaware; in any event, his claim of ignorance was substantiated by documentary material and was not a bare assertion.

On the second stage, the authorities had treated the mere existence of the NCR as automatically disqualifying.

They failed to examine the specific nature and gravity of the alleged offences, their relevance to the appellant’s post, the effect of the proceedings, or the subsequent deletion of his name.

The termination therefore reflected non-application of mind and was inconsistent with Avtar Singh and the requirement of objective decision-making.

The High Court’s judgment and the termination order were set aside.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the appellant forthwith with all consequential benefits, subject to back wages being restricted to 50%, payable within eight weeks; failing payment within that period, interest at 6% per annum would accrue from the date the amount became due until disbursement.

The appeal was accordingly allowed.