The Supreme Court has reiterated in the case of RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHERVERSUSANIL KANWARIYA decided today i.e. 17.09.2021 that where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to the employer.

Facts relevant to the present case are that the employee in the present case was convicted before he applied for the post of Technical Helper with the employer however at the time of the conviction, he was given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Good Conduct Act. After two years, the employee was selected however at the time of the appointment, the employee once again suppressed the fact of conviction while filling up the declaration form wherein a specific column was mentioned seeking information regarding the criminal antecedents of the employee.

On background verification of the employee, the Police verification report reflected the conviction and on having found the suppression of the employee, the employer issued him a Show Cause notice. On being served with the Show Cause Notice, the employee hurriedly filed an appeal against the conviction order and during the arguments, only sought benefit of Section 12 of the Probation Act. The Appellate Court within a month of the appeal while upholding the conviction, granted the benefit of Section 12 stating that the conviction will not serve as a disqualification. However inspite of that the employer terminated the services of the employee.

The Employee challenged the dismissal from service before the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan wherein the Ld. Single Judge relying on the decision of Avtar Singh versus Union of India and others granted the relief of reinstatement to the employee. The Employer went in appeal however the appeal was also dismissed by the Division bench of the Hon’ble High Court. Having suffered the dismissal of appeal, the employer approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order of reinstatement.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court while discussing the law laid down by the Apex Court in various cases observed that “the object of requiring information in the attestation form and the declaration thereafter by the candidate is to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to enter into or continue in service. It is further observed that when a candidate suppresses material information and/or gives false information, he cannot claim any right for appointment or continuance in service”.

Commenting on the demeanor of the employee who did not file an appeal against his conviction and faced with the Show Cause Notice, the Employee obtained the order in appeal after a gap of two years from the date of conviction seeking benefit of only section 12 of the Probation of Good Conduct Act, 1958. This benefit of Section 12 thus was held by the Hon’ble Court not beneficial to the employee because Order of this section 12 benefit is received later than the date of filling false declaration.

The Apex Court went a step further and stated that even in case of subsequent acquittal, the employee once made a false declaration and/or suppressed the material fact of pending criminal case shall not be entitled to an appointment as a mater of right.

Subsequently analysing the decision from the angle of the employer, the Apex Court went only on the question of TRUST for which the Court was of the view that the question is not surrounding the point of conviction but the question is regarding the credibility of any employee who at the inception itself suppressed material fact. The Court thus while setting aside the concurrent decisions of the High Court, upheld the order of termination terminating the services of the respondent on the ground of having obtained an appointment by suppressing material fact and filing a false declaration.