The Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar vs Union of India held that just because an employee suppressed information about a criminal case doesn’t warrant the employer to terminate his service in an arbitrary manner.
The Court observed that “The person who has suppressed the material information or has made false declaration indeed has no unfettered right of seeking appointment or continuity in service, but at least has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to be judiciously exercised by the competent authority in a reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts of the case on hand.”
In the instant case, the appellant was selected for the post of the Constable in the RPF (Railway Police Force). However, he was discharged from his services while he was under training on the pretext that he had hid/supressed the fact that a criminal case was pending against him. He approached the High Court but his case was dismissed. Thus, he approached the Supreme Court.
The Apex Court observed that “The criminal complaint/FIR in the present case was registered post submission of the application form. We have also taken into account the nature of the allegations made in the criminal case and that the matter was of trivial nature not involving moral turpitude. Further, the proceedings had ended in a clean acquittal.”
The Court also referred to the the case of Avtar Singh v/s Union of India where the court upheld an employee’s right to not to be dealt with arbitrarily, and that he cannot be discharged axiomatically at the stroke of a pen. He has every right to approach the competent authority and make out his case.
The Court referred to the observations made in the aforementioned case, and quoted Mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What being noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service.