SHATRUGHN YADAVversusTHE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD. (F.A.C.T.) AND OTHERS

                     [2026] 8 S.C.R. 550 : 2026 INSC 829

                             Shatrughn Yadav
                                      v.
             The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.
                           (F.A.C.T.) and Others
                         (Civil Appeal No. 10547 of 2026)
                                   11 August 2026
           [Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih,* JJ.]


                               Issue for Consideration
           Whether the action of the respondents in terminating the
           employment of the appellant on the ground of furnishing false
           information as regards his criminal antecedents, in the given facts
           and circumstances, was permissible in law.

                                      Headnotes†
           Service Law – Termination from service on ground of
           suppression or supply of false information – When not
           justified – Whether the action of the respondents in
           terminating the employment of the appellant on the ground
           of furnishing false information as regards his criminal
           antecedents was permissible in law:
           Held: Termination is 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 – 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

* Author
[2026] 8 S.C.R.                                                               551

  Shatrughn Yadav v. The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.
                       (F.A.C.T.) and Others

      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 – It is
      only 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 – Appellant’s consistent claim of
      bona fide ignorance of the Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) against
      him u/ss.323, 504, IPC stands duly established by documentary
      evidence on record – Claim of the appellant stands substantiated
      that, in the absence of any summons, and having never been
      called to the police station, arrested, or questioned, the appellant
      had no means of knowing about the NCR – Furthermore, although
      sufficient opportunity was granted to the appellant to put forth his
      case, the authorities have not undertaken any 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 – Termination of
      the appellant was not permissible in law, the order being illegal
      as well as without application of mind – Order of termination set
      aside – To be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential
      benefits, except for backwages which will be restricted to 50%.
      [Paras 21, 24, 29, 32-35]

      Alternative Remedy – Existence of, not an absolute bar to the
      exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly where the challenge
      is to the legality of the order of termination itself – Objection
      raised on behalf of the respondents as to the maintainability
      of the writ petition contending that the appellant ought to
      have availed of the remedy under the Industrial Disputes
      Act, 1947, and that the matter, involving disputed questions
      of fact, was not amenable to writ jurisdiction:
      Held: Submission not accepted – The existence of an alternative
      remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the exercise of
      writ jurisdiction, particularly where the challenge is to the legality
      of the order of termination itself. [Para 18]
552                                                             [2026] 8 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       Service Law – Suppression of information with regard to
       criminal antecedents – When not – 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 – Respondents contended that the appellant
       could not have been unaware of the NCR since his parents
       were also named therein:
       Held: No material was placed on record to show that the appellant
       was in fact informed by his parents of the registration of the NCR,
       or that he was otherwise put to notice of the same – In the absence
       of any such evidence, the respondents’ submission remains a
       matter of surmise and cannot displace the documentary material
       relied upon and placed on record by the appellant, particularly
       the character certificate by the Senior Superintendent of Police
       given subsequent to the date of the lodging of the NCR stating
       that there were no adverse entries against the appellant in the
       police records and a subsequent certificate issued by the Sub-
       Inspector of Police disclosing that although the appellant was
       initially arrayed in the NCR, his name was later removed after
       investigation as no evidence was found against him – 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 –
       Such lack of awareness of the existence of a criminal antecedent
       is itself a fact that must be established by the candidate, the onus
       being upon him to substantiate the claim before the employer –
       A bare plea of ignorance, without cogent and reliable material
       to assert such claim, will not suffice to escape liability – Were it
       otherwise, the requirement of disclosure in verification forms would
       be rendered illusory, open to circumvention by simply pleading
       ignorance. [Paras 27, 28, 30-32]
[2026] 8 S.C.R.                                                             553

  Shatrughn Yadav v. The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.
                       (F.A.C.T.) and Others

                              Case Law Cited
      Ravindra Kumar v. State of UP, 2024 INSC 131 : [2024] 2
      SCR 722; Avtar Singh v. Union of India [2016] 7 SCR 445 :
      (2016) 8 SCC 471; Umesh Chandra Yadav v. Inspector General
      and Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force,
      Northern Railway, New Delhi and others (2022) 14 SCC
      244 – relied on.

                                 List of Acts
      Penal Code, 1860; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

                              List of Keywords
      Termination from services; Suppression or supply of false
      information; Non-disclosure of criminal antecedents; Suppression
      of information regarding criminal antecedents; Furnishing
      false information; False information furnished; Suppressed or
      furnished false information; No suppression; Enquiry by employer;
      Non-Cognizable Report (NCR); Order of termination illegal;
      Non-application of mind; Alternative Remedy; Non-disclosure;
      Character certificate; Suppression of information; Not within
      knowledge; Not within candidate’s knowledge at relevant time;
      Disclosure in verification forms; Non-disclosure of a criminal case;
      Suppression of material information; Nature of allegations; Role
      and gravity of offence; Nature of the post; Nature of the duties.

                             Case Arising From
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10547
      of 2026

      From the Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2025 of the High
      Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in WA No. 414 of 2025

                          Appearances for Parties
      Advs. for the Appellant(s):
      Pv. Dinesh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Anna Oommen, Abdulla Naseeh V.T.

      Advs. for the Respondent(s):
      Parthiv Goswami, Sr. Adv., Siddhartha Jha, Kartik Jha, Ms. Atiga
      Singh, Ms. Nitika Sud.
554                                                           [2026] 8 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Judgment

       Augustine George Masih, J.

1.     Leave granted.
2.     The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated
       04.07.2025 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal
       No.414 of 2025 whereby the High Court upheld the judgment and
       order of the Single Judge and dismissed the appellant’s challenge
       to the termination order.
3.     The brief factual matrix is that the appellant was appointed to the 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. At the time of joining, he submitted an attestation form declaring
       that there was no criminal case pending against him.
4.     Six months later, a letter was forwarded by the respondent to
       the District Magistrate for verification of the appellant’s criminal
       antecedents. In response, vide letter dated 22.03.2022, the District
       Magistrate disclosed that a Non-Cognizable Report (hereinafter,
       ‘NCR’) dated 03.04.2019 had been 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.
5.     The appellant submitted his reply to the aforesaid notice stating
       that he had acted in a bona fide manner and had not suppressed
       or given false information as he was not aware of the registration
       of the NCR. He had not received any summons, nor was he
       arrested with respect to the said report, and therefore, he had no
       means to know that the said case was registered against him.
       To support his case, he enclosed with his reply a photocopy of
       a certificate dated 09.07.2020 issued by the Superintendent of
       Police, District Maharajganj which stated that there was no entry
       against the candidate as per the information received from the
       concerned police station, local intelligence unit and the District
       Crime Records Bureau.
[2026] 8 S.C.R.                                                             555

     Shatrughn Yadav v. The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.
                          (F.A.C.T.) and Others

6.      A further representation dated 06.06.2023 was submitted by the
        appellant enclosing the final report 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. This, he pleaded,
        fortified his stand of not being aware of the registration of the report.
7.      However, the respondents were dissatisfied with the reply. After
        granting a few more opportunities to substantiate his claim, a
        termination letter was issued to the appellant on 05.08.2023
        cancelling his appointment.
8.      Aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court by filing Writ
        Petition No.37484 of 2023 challenging the order of termination.
        The learned Single Judge declined to interfere, holding that the
        appellant’s claim of being unaware of the NCR involved a disputed
        question of fact requiring proof. By the impugned order, the Division
        Bench concurred with the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal.
        The appellant is therefore now before this Court by way of the
        present appeal.
9.      Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the High Court has
        erred in not appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.
        He places reliance on the judgments in Ravindra Kumar v State of
        UP1 and Avtar Singh v Union of India2 to contend that the question
        to be examined is not whether there is non-disclosure simplicitor,
        but whether there was deliberate suppression or supply of false
        information on the part of the candidate. Each case has to be
        examined on its own merits and termination cannot be an automatic
        consequence of existence of criminal antecedents.
10.     It is submitted that such an exercise has not been undertaken in
        the appellant’s case. The appellant’s consistent stand has been
        that he had no knowledge of the existence of the NCR, therefore
        his declaration was bona fide.
11.     It is contended that this stand is further strengthened by the character
        certificate issued by the Police on 09.07.2020, and the subsequent
        certificate stating that the appellant’s name was deleted from the
        array of accused persons as no evidence was found against him.


1     (2024) INSC 131
2     (2016) 8 SCC 471
556                                                           [2026] 8 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       Since he was never called to the police station or associated in
       the investigation, nor was he arrested, he had no knowledge of the
       proceedings and answered the question on the form truthfully, to
       the best of his knowledge.
12.    It is further submitted that the High Court also erred in holding that it
       lacked the jurisdiction to examine the appellant’s case on the ground
       that it involved disputed questions of fact, since the real issue was
       the legality of the termination of the appellant’s appointment.
13.    Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supports the
       impugned judgment and submits that the suppression of information
       regarding the NCR rendered the appellant unfit for employment. The
       offer of appointment had been issued to the appellant contingent
       upon clearance of antecedents. The appellant, despite being aware
       of the NCR, did not reveal its pendency to the respondents.
14.    It is also submitted that the discharge of the appellant from the
       NCR has no bearing on the falsity of the declaration given in the
       attestation form. Moreover, it is unlikely that he had no knowledge
       of the NCR since his parents were also charged.
15.    On the question of jurisdiction, it is submitted that the appellant ought
       to have exhausted the remedy available under the Industrial Disputes
       Act, 1947. The matter, being one involving disputed questions of
       fact, ought not to have been entertained in writ jurisdiction.
16.    Lastly, it is urged that since the appellant was on probation when his
       services were terminated, in the event this Court is of the opinion
       that the appellant ought to be reinstated, his reinstatement ought
       to be made in the capacity of a consolidated pay period appointee.
17.    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused
       the material on record.
18.    Before proceeding, we must first address the objection raised
       on behalf of the respondents as to the maintainability of the writ
       petition, it being contended that the appellant ought to have availed
       of the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that
       the matter, involving disputed questions of fact, was not amenable
       to writ jurisdiction. We are unable to accept this submission. It is
       settled law that the existence of an alternative remedy does not
       operate as an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction,
[2026] 8 S.C.R.                                                           557

  Shatrughn Yadav v. The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.
                       (F.A.C.T.) and Others

      particularly where the challenge is to the legality of the order of
      termination itself.
19.   Now coming to the merits of the case, the issue to be considered
      by us is whether the action of the respondents in terminating the
      employment of the appellant, in the given facts and circumstances,
      was permissible in law.
20.   The legal position on the issue of suppression of information in
      verification forms with regard to criminal antecedents has been
      settled and summarised in a three-Judge Bench decision of this
      Court in Avtar Singh (supra). The relevant paragraphs are reproduced
      hereinbelow:
            “38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to
            explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of
            the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion
            thus:
            38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate
            as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a
            criminal case, whether before or after entering into service
            must be true and there should be no suppression or
            false mention of required information.
            38.2. While passing 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.
            38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the
            government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the
            employee, at the time of taking the decision.
            38.4. In case there is suppression or false information
            of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or
            acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the
            application/verification form and such fact later comes to
            knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses
            appropriate to the case may be adopted:
            38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had
            been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age
            or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have
558                                                     [2026] 8 S.C.R.

                    Supreme Court Reports


       rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the
       employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression
       of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.
       38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case
       which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel
       candidature or terminate services of the employee.
       38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration
       truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still
       has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be
       compelled to appoint the candidate.
       38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared
       in character verification form regarding pendency of a
       criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and
       circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint
       the candidate subject to decision of such case.
       38.4.3. If acquittal had 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.
       38.7. 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.
       38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the
       candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have
       adverse impact and the appointing authority would take
       decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
       38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service,
       holding departmental enquiry would be necessary before
       passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the
       ground of suppression or submitting false information in
       verification form.
[2026] 8 S.C.R.                                                             559

    Shatrughn Yadav v. The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.
                         (F.A.C.T.) and Others

                38.10. For determining suppression or false information
                attestation/verification form has to be specific, not
                vague. Only such information which was required to be
                specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information
                not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the
                employer the same can be considered in an objective
                manner while addressing the question of fitness.
                However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis
                of suppression or submitting false information as to a
                fact which was not even asked for.
                38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio
                veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be
                attributable to him.”
21.     What emerges from the above is that the relevant facts and
        circumstances must be considered in each case. The order of
        termination must not be mechanical but must have regard to the
        form of suppression, the outcome of the criminal case, the nature of
        the employment and of the offence, and any special circumstances.
        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.
22.     In a recent decision of this Court in Ravindra Kumar(supra) involving
        non-disclosure of a criminal case in the verification form, this Court
        granted relief to the appellant therein, having regard to the fact that
        on the date of the application, no criminal case was pending as he
        had been acquitted. Due regard was also given to the character
        certificate by the SHO certifying that the candidate was excellent,
        and that the appellant’s general reputation was good. This Court also
        noted that the selection had been mechanically treated as irregular
        merely because the affidavit contained incorrect facts, instead of
        considering the appellant’s suitability for appointment, which was
        an impermissible approach.
23.     Similarly, in Umesh Chandra Yadav v Inspector General and
        Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Northern
        Railway, New Delhi and others3, where the appellant had failed to


3     (2022) 14 SCC 244
560                                                           [2026] 8 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       furnish information regarding a criminal case wherein he had been
       discharged as a juvenile, this Court, while granting relief, noted that
       in the facts and circumstances, such action could not be considered
       suppression of material information. It was reiterated that termination
       must not be done arbitrarily and the yardstick to be applied depends
       on the nature of the post, the impact of suppression and suitability.
       The relevant paragraph is reproduced hereinbelow:
             “14. This cannot be disputed that the candidate who
             intend to participate in the selection process is required
             to furnish correct information relating to his character and
             antecedents in the verification/attestation form before
             or after his induction into service. At the same time, it
             is also true that the person who has suppressed the
             material information, cannot claim unfettered right of
             seeking appointment or continuity in service but, at the
             same time, he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily
             and power has to be exercised in reasonable manner
             with objectivity having due regard to the facts of the case
             on hand. The yardstick which has to be applied always
             depends upon the nature of post, nature of duties, impact
             of suppression on suitability has to be considered by the
             competent authority considering post/nature of duties/
             services and power has to be exercised on due diligence
             of various aspects at the given time and no hard-and-fast
             rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard.”
24.    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
[2026] 8 S.C.R.                                                         561

  Shatrughn Yadav v. The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.
                       (F.A.C.T.) and Others

      of the employee in service would not be feasible and the only option
      available is termination from service. It is only 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.
25.   Having elaborated upon the settled law on the issue before us, we
      now proceed to apply the same to the facts and circumstances at
      hand.
26.   Looking at the first prong, whether there has been any suppression
      or supply of false information on the part of the appellant, we observe
      that the consistent stand of the appellant is that he had no knowledge
      of the NCR involving him. Therefore, to the best of his knowledge
      and in a bona fide manner, he stated in his verification form that
      there was no criminal case pending against him.
27.   The appellant has also relied upon a character certificate dated
      09.07.2020 by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Maharajganj, that
      stated that there were no adverse entries against the appellant in
      the police records. Pertinently, this certificate was given subsequent
      to the date of the lodging of the NCR i.e. 03.04.2019.
28.   The appellant has also brought on record a subsequent certificate
      dated 09.08.2023 issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nichlaul,
      Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh, disclosing that although the appellant
      was initially arrayed in the NCR, his name was later removed after
      investigation as no evidence was found against him. It was also
      certified that he was neither called to the police station nor was he
      arrested during the relevant period.
29.   From the above, the claim of the appellant stands substantiated
      that, in the absence of any summons, and having never been called
      to the police station, arrested, or questioned, the appellant had no
      means of knowing about the NCR.
30.   We are also not persuaded by the submission of the respondents
      that the appellant could not have been unaware of the NCR since
      his parents were also named therein. No material has been placed
      on record to show that the appellant was in fact informed by his
      parents of the registration of the NCR, or that he was otherwise put
      to notice of the same. In the absence of any such evidence, the
      respondents’ submission remains a matter of surmise and cannot
      displace the documentary material relied upon and placed on record
562                                                             [2026] 8 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       by the appellant, particularly the certificate dated 09.07.2020 and
       the subsequent confirmation of deletion of his name from the array
       of accused.
31.    Needless to say, 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.
32.    We hasten to add that such lack of awareness of the existence of
       a criminal antecedent is itself a fact that must be established by
       the candidate, the onus being upon him to substantiate the claim
       before the employer. A bare plea of ignorance, without cogent and
       reliable material to assert such claim, will not suffice to escape
       liability. Were it otherwise, the requirement of disclosure in verification
       forms would be rendered illusory, open to circumvention by simply
       pleading ignorance. In the present case, as discussed above, we find
       that the appellant’s consistent claim of bona fide ignorance of the
       NCR stands duly established by documentary evidence on record.
33.    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.
34.    In light of the above, we answer the issue framed by us in the
       negative, and hold that the termination of the appellant was not
[2026] 8 S.C.R.                                                         563

  Shatrughn Yadav v. The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.
                       (F.A.C.T.) and Others

      permissible in law, as it fails on both the prongs, the order being
      illegal as well as without application of mind.
35.   In the facts and circumstances, since there is nothing on record to
      indicate that the appellant was otherwise unfit for the post in terms
      of qualifications, and nothing has been brought on record regarding
      his work being unsatisfactory, we set aside the order of termination
      of the appellant and direct reinstatement in service forthwith with all
      consequential benefits, except for backwages 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.
36.   The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
37.   Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

      Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




      †
          Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey