Employee Can't Be Terminated For Non-Disclosure Of Criminal Case Without Proof They Knew About It: Orissa HC
A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman held that suppression of information in a verification form must be of a 'material' fact, and penal action is not warranted if the candidate lacked knowledge of the criminal case, especially where the case was trivial or ended in acquittal.
Background Facts
The respondent was appointed to a post after furnishing a Verification Roll. She disclosed in Roll that she had never been accused in a criminal case nor had she ever been in prison. The authorities detected that three criminal cases were registered against the respondent. One of case ended in acquittal on 4th August, 2017, while the Verification Roll was furnished on 21st August, 2017.
The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Headquarters) passed an order on the premise that the respondent had made a false and incorrect statement in the Verification Roll. Aggrieved by the order, the respondent filed a writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of by quashing the order and directing reinstatement of the respondent with all consequential benefits.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed the appeal before the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court.
It was argued by the appellants that the suppression of material information and non-disclosure of such fact should not be treated leniently. It was contended that the respondent is serving in a disciplined organisation, which requires high standard of moral and character. The appellants submitted that conscious suppression of the facts of a criminal case lodged against the respondent creates a greater impact on the disciplined organization.
On the other hand, it was argued by the respondent that she was not aware of those criminal cases lodged against her. Therefore, she had disclosed in the Verification Roll in the negative manner. It was further submitted that all the three criminal cases ended in her favour. The stand of the State that those were pending was incorrect. It was further contended that one of such criminal cases was pending as on the date of furnishing the Verification Roll but later on it was disposed of acquitting her.
Findings and Observations of the Court
It was noted by the Court that all the three criminal cases, which were registered against the respondent, ended in her favour. Further, the stand of the State that those were pending did not appear to be correct. It was further observed that a report of the Additional DCP, Crime, Commissionerate Headquarters, Bhubaneswar found the stand of the respondent that she was not aware of any such case. Further, even the disposal of cases in the form of an acquittal was done in her absence.
The case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India was relied upon wherein it was held that verification of character and antecedents is one of the significant criteria to assess the suitability of a candidate for the employment but while taking an ultimate decision, the objective standards have to be borne in mind, which include all the relevant factors.
It was further held that suppression of “material information” should not be of a trivial or a technical nature. It was held that if the respondent did not have the knowledge of the criminal case pending against her, such negative disclosure should not act against her inviting a serious penal consequence i.e. removal/termination from service.
Further the case of Pawan Kumar v. Union of India was relied upon wherein it was held that in the event the criminal case is of a trivial nature and the knowledge of such criminal case cannot be established as on the date of the submission of a form relating to an antecedent or the character, it would not be proper on the part of an employer to penalise such employee by removing him/her from service.
It was held by the Court that the fact-finding authority arrived at the conclusion that the respondent was not aware of the registration of those cases at the time when the Verification Roll was furnished by her, therefore, the respondent is entitled to the reliefs as granted by the Single Judge.
With the aforesaid observations, the decision of the Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the Appeal filed by the Society was dismissed by the Division Bench.
Case Name : State of Odisha and others vs Sagarika Parida
Case No. : W.A. No.357 of 2026
Counsel for the Appellants : Saswat Das, Additional Government Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents : Pallavi Mohanty, Advocate