November 29, 2018
The Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case has primarily held that even after the disclosure is made by a candidate, the employer would be well within his rights to consider the antecedents and the suitability of the candidate.
Case name: State of Madhya Pradesh & ors. v. Abhijit Singh Pawar
The present appeal was filed by the State against order passed by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court. Here it would be relevant to mention that in 2012 Examination Board of Madhya Pradesh had invited applications for posts of subedars, platoon commanders and inspectors of police. The respondent had participated in the selection process and had accordingly tendered an affidavit wherein he disclosed that a case under relevant sections of IPC were registered against him and were pending. The respondent later was selected in the written examination; however, after considering his character verification report, his candidature was rejected. The respondent filed a writ petition there against which was allowed by a Single Judge and further affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
The Supreme Court in the case in view of the facts and circumstances took the opportunity to issue a slew of directions for appointment of employer:
- That 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.
- That 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.
- That employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
- That 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:
- 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.
- 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 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.
- That 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.
- That in a 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.
- That 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.
- That 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.
- That 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.
- That 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.
- That before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.
In view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case, the Court concluded that even after the disclosure is made by a candidate, the employer would be well within his rights to consider the antecedents and the suitability of the candidate. While so considering, the employer can certainly take into account the job profile for which the selection is undertaken, the severity of the charges levelled against the candidate and whether the acquittal in question was an honourable acquittal or was merely on the ground of benefit of doubt or as a result of composition.
The entire can be accessed here.