Enquiry Necessary To Dismiss Employee For Suppression Of Criminal Antecedents : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 11) observed that the disclosure of criminal antecedents by an employee after joining service would not automatically result in dismissal. The Court held that before passing a termination order, the employer must conduct an enquiry to determine whether the suppression of criminal antecedents was deliberate and must record a finding that the continuation of the employee is unfeasible.

“Termination is therefore not an automatic consequence of the disclosure of criminal antecedents; rather, the specific case of the employee must be considered, and the employer must apply its mind before arriving at a decision.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih.

The bench also laid down two-pronged tests to be satisfied by the employer when considering the termination of an employee on the grounds of suppression of criminal antecedents.

“To summarise, the enquiry to be undertaken by the employer, before proceeding to terminate the services of an employee on the ground of suppression of information regarding criminal antecedents, is essentially two-pronged.

The first is one of fact: whether there has, in truth, been any suppression or furnishing of false information by the candidate, having regard to the extent of his knowledge at the relevant time and the circumstances in which the declaration came to be made.

The second prong of enquiry requires the authorities to apply their mind to the specific facts and circumstances of the case including the type of the suppression, the nature of allegations, role and gravity of the offence, the nature of the post and the duties attached to it and wherever relevant the effect thereof, and the eventual outcome of the criminal proceedings, if concluded, in order to arrive at a considered conclusion as to whether the continuation of the employee in service would not be feasible and the only option available is termination from service.”

The Court clarified that it is only after “where both these stages of enquiries are undertaken and not otherwise, that an order of termination on this ground can be said to be sustainable in law.”

The Appellant was appointed on a post of Technician(Process) by the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. on 05.05.2021 on consolidated pay for an initial tenure of two years. Six months later, based on a representation sent by the employer to the District Magistrate for verification of the appellant's criminal antecedents, it was informed that a Non-Cognizable Report dated 03.04.2019 was registered against the appellant under Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC.

Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 30.04.2022, directing him to furnish reasons as to why his services should not be terminated on the ground of furnishing false information.

The Appellant denied having any information about the existence of any criminal case against him at the time of joining. He denied suppression of criminal antecedents based on a representation made to the employer on 06.06.2023, which recorded that the police had found no evidence against him and therefore his name had been deleted from the array of the accused persons.

Dissatisfied with the Appellant's representations, the employer passed a termination order without enquiring the truth about the suppression, nor it recorded the reasons why the continuation of the Appellant was not feasible.

Aggrieved, the Appellant invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court of Kerala, where the Single Judge held that the appellant's claim of being unaware of the NCR involved a disputed question of fact requiring proof. The Division Bench concurred with the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal, prompting him to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned decisions, the judgment authored by Justice Masih observed that the High Court erred in dismissing the Appellant's petition.

The Court noted that the Appellant has not deliberately suppressed the fact about the pendency of the criminal case, as it was his consistent stand he was unaware about registration of any criminal case against him. The Court gave credence to the character certificate issued by the police, implying him to be of good character, and further certificates issued by the police showing non-pendency of a case against the Appellant. It was also certified that he was neither called to the police station nor was he arrested during the relevant period.

Therefore, applying the aforesaid prongs to the present case, the Court observed that neither of them was satisfied to order the Appellant's termination.

“…knowledge of a fact is a necessary pre-requisite for its non-disclosure. The very concept of suppression presupposes an awareness of that which is suppressed; one cannot be said to have withheld or concealed something of which one had no knowledge in the first place. It would be both illogical and unjust to hold a candidate liable for suppression of information that was never within his knowledge to begin with. Therefore, where the very existence of a criminal antecedent is not shown to have been within the candidate's knowledge at the relevant time, he cannot be held to have suppressed or furnished false information in that regard, there being no suppression of a fact that was, to him, non-existent.”, the Court said.

“The second prong of the enquiry to be undertaken is whether the criminal antecedent, and the suppression, if any, is of such nature that merits termination of employment. In the present case, we observe that although sufficient opportunity was granted to the appellant to put forth his case, the authorities have not undertaken such enquiry. They have not considered the specific facts and circumstances and have proceeded under the presumption that existence of the criminal antecedent would automatically render the appellant ineligible for the post. There have been no specific findings regarding the specific nature of the offence and its impact on the nature of the post held by the appellant, and the subsequent discharge of the appellant has not been given due consideration.”, the Court added.

“…we hold that the termination of the appellant was not permissible in law, as it fails on both the prongs, the order being illegal as well as without application of mind.”, the Court held.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, directing the reinstatement of the Appellant “with all consequential benefits, except for back wages which will be restricted to 50% to be paid within a period of eight weeks from today failing which interest @6% per annum will be payable from the date the amount became due till disbursal.”

Cause Title: SHATRUGHN YADAV VERSUS THE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD. (F.A.C.T.) AND OTHERS

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 789

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. PV. Dinesh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anna Oommen, Adv. Mr. Abdulla Naseeh V.T., AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Parthiv Goswami, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Jha, AOR Mr. Kartik Jha, Adv. Ms. Atiga Singh, Adv. Ms. Nitika Sud, Adv.