RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHER versus ANIL KANWARIYA

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 710 · Decided: 17-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
710
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LIMITED
AND ANOTHER
v.
ANIL KANWARIYA
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5743-5744 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 17, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Termination from services – Non-disclosure/
suppression of material fact and filing a false declaration –
Appellants invited applications for the post of Technical Helper –
Respondent-employee was appointed for the said post as a
probationer trainee for a period of two years – As per the
appointment order, the respondent was required to produce a
character certification/verification report issued by the
Superintendent of Police (SP) of the concerned District from
where he belonged – SP informed the appellants that the respondent
was convicted by the trial Court for the offences u/s 341, 323 IPC,
however, given the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act,
1958 and the respondent-employee was ordered to be released on
probation for good conduct – Having found that the respondent
deliberately suppressed the fact of conviction and penalty, not only
at the time of applying post, but also when he submitted a declaration
during documents verification that neither criminal case is pending
against him nor he has suffered any conviction by any court of law
in any criminal case – Appellant was terminated – Writ Petition –
The High Court quashed and set aside the order of the termination
and directed reinstatement of the respondent – On appeal, held: At
the time when respondent-employee submitted the application for
appointment, he did not disclose the fact that he already suffered a
conviction by the Competent Court  but in fact, a false declaration
was filed that neither any criminal case is pending against him nor
he has been convicted by any Court of law – It is only after the
police verification, the appellants came to know about the conviction
of the respondent – Therefore, the appellants were absolutely
justified in terminating the services of the respondent – The question
is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee,
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 710
710
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
711
the question is of TRUST – The order of reinstatement is wholly
untenable and unjustified.
Allowing the appeals, this Court
HELD: 1. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the
various  decisions to the facts of the case on hand, the impugned
order passed by the Division Bench dismissing the appeal and
confirming the order passed by the Single Judge quashing and
setting aside the order of termination terminating the services
of the employee on the ground of non-disclosure/suppression of
material fact and filing a false declaration and directing the
appellants to reinstate the respondent-employee is unsustainable.
[Para 9][728-B-D]
2. Apart from the fact that at the time when the respondent
applied in the month of October/November, 2013 though he was
already convicted by the competent court and was given the
benefit under Section 3 of the Act 1958 only, he did not disclose
his conviction, but even at the time when he filed a declaration
on 14.04.2015 he filed a false declaration that neither any criminal
case is pending against him nor he has been convicted by any
court of law and relying upon such a declaration the appellants
gave him appointment. Only on police verification/receipt of the
antecedent’s report from the Superintendent of Police, the
appellants came to know about the conviction of the respondent.
Therefore, the appellants were absolutely justified in terminating
the services of the respondent. [Para 10][728-D-F]
3. Even the conduct on the part of the respondent to obtain
the order subsequently from the Sessions Court in an appeal and
getting the benefit of Section 12 of the Act 1958 deserves
consideration. The judgment and order of conviction by the trial
Court was passed as far back as on 5.8.2013. For two years, the
respondent did not file any appeal before the Sessions Court.
After a period of approximately two years and after he obtained
the appointment on the basis of the false declaration that neither
any criminal case is pending against him nor he has been convicted
by any court of law and having realised that his conviction and the
benefit granted under Section 3 of the Act 1958 by the trial Court
RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LIMITED AND
ANOTHER v. ANIL KANWARIYA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
712
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
only will come in his way, subsequently after a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.