Supreme Court of India
STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS. versus GOBINDA BEHERA on 31 January 2020
STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS.
v.
GOBINDA BEHERA
(Civil Appeal No. 893 of 2020)
JANUARY 31, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Service Law – Respondent applied for appointment to the postof Constable in Odisha State Police specifically stating in hisapplication that he was not involved in any criminal case –Appointed – During verification, it was found that he was involvedin a case u/ss.294/323/324/326/336/337/427/379/506/34, IPC –Respondent was discharged from service – Odisha AdministrativeTribunal rejected Original Application (OA) filed by the respondent– Reversed by High Court – On appeal, held: Respondent wasseeking 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 withconsequences for personal liberty of citizens – To expect that anapplicant for such a position would be truthful in the disclosure ofinformation sought about the antecedents is a justifiable basis forassessment of personality and character – Case against therespondent cannot be regarded as being trivial in nature – Despitebeing involved in the criminal case, the respondent suppressed thesefacts – Criminal case was quashed in exercise of jurisdiction u/s.482, CrPC on the basis of compromise between the parties muchafter the order of discharge – Impugned order set aside – Order ofthe Tribunal maintained – OA filed by the respondent is dismissed –Orissa Police Rules – r.673.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The respondent was seeking public employmentin the State police service. His duties, on appointment to theservice, would be of a responsible character, bearing intrinsicallyon the maintenance of law and order and with consequences forpersonal liberty of citizens. To expect that an applicant for such aposition would be truthful in the disclosure of information soughtabout the antecedents is a justifiable basis for assessment of
643
A
B
CDEF
GH
Apersonality and character. The employer can legitimately concludethat a person who has suppressed material facts does not deserveto be in its employment. In the present case, the case against therespondent cannot be regarded as being trivial in nature. Thatapart, it is evident that, despite being involved in the criminalcase, the respondent suppressed these facts from the authoritiesBwhile applying for the post of a Constable in the State Police. Thecriminal case was quashed in exercise of the jurisdiction underSection 482 of CrPC on the basis of a compromise between theparties much after the order of discharge. Hence, the view whichhas been taken by the High Court is palpably unsustainable. TheCTribunal was justified in rejecting the application. The impugnedjudgment and order of the High Court is set aside. Whilemaintaining the order of the Tribunal, the OA filed by therespondent shall stand dismissed. [Paras 7, 8][647-H; 648-A-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 893 ofD2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.03.2018 of the High Courtof Orissa at Cuttack in W.P. (C) No. 21868 of 2015.
Shibashish Misra, S. Debabrata Reddy, Chandan Kumar Mandal,Advs. for the Appellants.E
Azim H. Laskar, Sachin Das, Adtiya Kumar Archiya, Ms. SampaSengupta Ray, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.F
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
1
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal arises from a judgment and order of a DivisionBench of the High Court of Orissa dated 29 March 2018.
G
4. The respondent applied for appointment to the post of aConstable in the Odisha State Police in the 6[th] IR Batallion, Khurda on29 October 2011. In response to a query, the respondent specificallystated in his application that he was not involved in any criminal case.He was appointed on 14 December 2011. A verification roll was provided H
to him, which was to be filled up in terms of Rule 673 of the OrissaPolice Rules. On 22 May 2012, the Superintendent of Police, Puri informedthe Commandant that during the course of the verification of the characterand antecedents of the respondent, it was found that he was involved inBalanga PS Case No 46 of 2009 under Sections 294/323/324/326/336/337/427/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860[1]. On 6 July 2012, therespondent was called upon to explain why he had submitted a falsestatement in the verification roll and in the application for appointment tothe post of Constable. The respondent was discharged from service on26 July 2012, upon which he filed a proceeding before the OdishaAdministrative Tribunal[2]. The Tribunal rejected the Original Application[3]on the ground that the respondent had furnished a false declaration.This decision of the Tribunal was reversed by the High Court, by itsimpugned judgment. The High Court did so on the basis of a judgment ofthis Court in Avtar Singh v Union of India[4 ](Avtar Singh). The HighCourt held that the Tribunal had not taken note of the fact that the criminalproceeding had already been quashed and that the suppression in thecircumstances was of a technical and trivial nature. The authorities weredirected to consider the case of the respondent for reinstatement in hisformer post and to grant consequential service and financial benefits.
5. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of theappellant and the respondent, the factual position, which has emergedbefore the Court, is that the First Information Report in the criminal casewas lodged on 16 June 2009. The respondent surrendered before theJMFC on 3 August 2009 and was released on bail in view of an orderdated 28 July 2009 which had been passed by the High Court in BailApplication 10246 of 2009. The respondent applied for the post of aConstable thereafter on 29 October 2011 and was appointed on 14December 2011. The respondent moved the High Court under Section482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973[5] for quashing the criminalproceedings. The High Court, by its order dated 22 November 2013,quashed the criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise betweenthe parties. This was after the order of discharge from service on 26July 2012.
1 “IPC”
2 “Tribunal”
3 “OA”
5 ‘‘CrPC’’
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
6. The position in law has been considered by this Court in adecision of a three-Judge Bench in Avtar Singh. The summary of theconclusions is contained in the following extract:
“38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as toconviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case,Bwhether before or after entering into service must be true andthere should be no suppression or false mention of requiredinformation.
38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellationof candidature for giving false information, the employer may takeCnotice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while givingsuch information.
38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the governmentorders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the timeof taking the decision.
D
38.4. In case there is suppression or false information ofinvolvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal hadalready been recorded before filling of the application/verificationform and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any ofthe following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted:
E
E38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had beenrecorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a pettyoffence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbentunfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignoresuch suppression of fact or false information by condoning theFlapse.
38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is nottrivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminateservices of the employee.
38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involvingGmoral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technicalground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit ofreasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider allrelevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriatedecision as to the continuance of the employee.
H
38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfullyof a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right toconsider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint thecandidate.
38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in characterverification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivialnature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in itsdiscretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of suchcase.
38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect tomultiple pending cases such false information by itself will assumesignificance and an employer may pass appropriate ordercancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment ofa person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending maynot be proper.
38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidateat the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact andthe appointing authority would take decision after considering theseriousness of the crime.
38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service,holding departmental enquiry would be necessary before passingorder of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground ofsuppression 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 suchinformation which was required to be specifically mentioned hasto be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comesto knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in anobjective manner while addressing the question of fitness.However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis ofsuppression or submitting false information as to a fact whichwas not even asked for.
38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestiofalsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.”
7. The respondent was seeking public employment in the Statepolice service. His duties, on appointment to the service, would be of a A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aresponsible character, bearing intrinsically on the maintenance of lawand order and with consequences for personal liberty of citizens. Toexpect that an applicant for such a position would be truthful in thedisclosure of information sought about the antecedents is a justifiablebasis for assessment of personality and character. The employer canlegitimately conclude that a person who has suppressed material factsBdoes not deserve to be in its employment.
8. In the present case, the case against the respondent cannot beregarded as being trivial in nature. That apart, it is evident that, despitebeing involved in the criminal case, the respondent suppressed thesefacts from the authorities while applying for the post of a Constable inCthe State Police. The criminal case was quashed in exercise of thejurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC on the basis of a compromisebetween the parties much after the order of discharge. Hence, the viewwhich has been taken by the High Court is palpably unsustainable. TheTribunal was justified in rejecting the application.
D
9. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugnedjudgment and order of the High Court dated 29 March 2018. Whilemaintaining the order of the Tribunal, we order and direct that the OAfiled by the respondent shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order asto costs.
E
Divya Pandey
Appeal allowed.
F
G
H