Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Considered the rival contentions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

8. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the applicant while getting employment submitted an attestation form with the respondents in which he did not disclose the fact of pendency of criminal cases against him. Though the specific warnings were given at the top of the attestation form that furnishing of false information or suppression of material fact in the attestation form would result into termination of the services. Apart from this, he also filed a false affidavit deposing therein that he was never prosecuted uptil 12.12.2012 nor he was taken into custody. Still further, he deposed in the said affidavit that there is no criminal case pending against him. Believing the depositions of the applicant in his affidavit as well as the declaration made by him in the attestation form as correct, he was offered appointment by the respondents on 26.12.2012. However, the deposition made by the applicant in his affidavit dated 12.12.2012 and the declaration made by him in his attestation form dated 18.12.2012 were found to be false when the respondents received a letter dated 04.10.2013 from the Additional Collector and District Magistrate, Jaipur. A perusal of letter dated 04.10.2013 (Annexure R/3) reveals that on inquiry it was found that Case No. 913/07 under Section 141, 323, 341 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the applicant on 27.11.2007, apart from Case No. 38/08 under Section 452, 427, 379 was registered on 12.09.2008 and both the cases are pending consideration before the court. Apart from these two cases, one more Case No. 86/08 was also registered against the applicant under Section 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur. The applicant himself submitted in his rejoinder that in Case No. 913/07, a compromise was arrived at between the parties so far as the offences under Section 323, 341 IPC are concerned and the matter with regard to offence under Section 147 IPC is pending. So far as the offence under Section 379 IPC is concerned, the Police did not file any Challan, this is the assertion made by the applicant. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the applicant concealed the pendency of criminal cases against him. He had even gone to the extent of filing wrong affidavit before the respondents in order to get employment.

9. The question now arises that while referring to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra) whether it can be held that the employer should ignore the suppression of fact with regard to pendency of criminal cases against a candidate and also should ignore the fact of wrong deposition in an affidavit where, in any case, a deponent is bound to state the true and correct facts and not to suppress any material fact. While summing up the conclusions in Avtar Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in para 30 that while passing an 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further ruled that if acquittal has 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 in services. It has further been ruled 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.

10. While keeping in view the aforestated principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra), we are of the view that the respondents have committed no error while passing the impugned order dated 16.12.2013 (Annexure A/1) terminating the services of the applicant. A perusal of the order dated 26.10.2012 (Annexure A/3) passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur reveals that an FIR was registered against the applicant for house trespass and snatching of chain from a woman in the house. However, since the applicant later on remained successful in entering into a compromise with the complainant and the witnesses turned hostile, therefore, he was acquitted of the offences. In our considered view, retention of an employee with such an antecedent cannot be construed to be in larger public interest and, therefore, the respondents have committed no error while terminating his services. Apart from this, the applicant submitted a wrong affidavit dated 12.12.2012 (Annexure R/2). He also made false declarations while submitting his attestation form on 18.12.2012 (Annexure R/1) in order to get employment. At that time, he was not a person of tender age. He was aged about 30 years at that time and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that he did not know the consequences of submitting a wrong affidavit / information before the public authorities.