LexAVTAR SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 7 S.C.R. 445 AVTAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20525of2011) JULY21,2016 [RANJAN GOGOi, ARUN MISHRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.) SERVICE LAW.· Appointment - Verification of antecedents - Importance of - Quashing of appointment or dismissal from service on account of supp:-ession of information or submission of false information in the verification as to question of having been criminally prosecuted, arrested or as to pendency of a criminal case - Held: 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 - 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 recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted: In a case trivial i:7 nature in which conviction had been recorded, which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the empbyer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse - Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee - 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 daub: 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 - In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an emplcyer may 445 A B c D E F G H 446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 7 S.C.R. A pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper. Appointment - Declaration of employee as to concluded criminal case - Held: Where the employee has made declaration B truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right . to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. Appointment - Declaration of employee as to pendency of criminal case - Held: In case when fact has been truthfully declared C 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. Termination of employee on the ground of misrepresentation D or supp,.ession of material information in the verification - Held: E F G H Merely because there is a power to terminate services or cancellation of offer of appointment, it does not follow that a person should be removed outrightly - Various aspects have to be considered and the discretion so used should not be arbitrary or fanciful - It has to be guided on certain principles for which purpose verification is sought. Termination of confirmed employee on the ground of misrepresentation or suppression of material information in the verification - Held: The fraud and misrepresentation vitiates a transaction and in case employment has been obtained on the basis of forged documents, the incumbent may be terminated wilhout holding any inquiry - However in case employee is confirmed, holding a civil post and has protection of Article 311 (2), due inquiry has to be held before terminating the services. Verification form - Held: For determining suppression or false information, the 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 A VTAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 447 on the basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a A fact which
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.