Employer cannot arbitrarily discharge employee for mere suppression of criminal case: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that mere suppression of information regarding pending criminal cases does not mean that employers can arbitrarily terminate the service of the concerned employee [Pawan Kumar v. Union of India and Another]..A Division Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna relying on the decision in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others (2016), said that"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. ... What being (sic) 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."The Bench clarified that while such a person has no unfettered right to remain in service, they do have the right to not be dealt with arbitrarily."The 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," the Court said. .The top court was hearing an appeal assailing a decision of the Delhi High Court that had upheld the discharge order passed against the appellant-employee by Railway authorities on the ground that he had failed to disclose information regarding a criminal case against him.The appellant was selected for the post of Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF). While he was undergoing training, he came to be discharged from the service on the ground that he failed to disclose that a first information report (FIR) against him for the offence of armed rioting. The respondent-authorities found that there was suppression of information/false declaration in the verification form at the time of applying for the said post.The High Court dismissed a writ petition moved by the appellant against the discharge orders. Aggrieved, the present appeal was moved before the top court..At the outset, the Supreme Court noted that on the date when the application form was filled by the appellant for the said post, no such criminal case was either instituted or pending against him and what was disclosed by him at the time was not suppression of relevant information or submission of false declarations.The appellant was charged for trivial offences and later acquitted after the complainant had admitted that the case was borne out of misconception, it was noted."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 observed. .The respondent-authorities were, therefore, directed to reinstate the appellant in service as Constable..[Read Judgment]