STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS.versusGOBINDA BEHERA

                        [2020] 3 S.C.R. 643                            643


                 STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS.                              A
                                 v.
                       GOBINDA BEHERA
                   (Civil Appeal No. 893 of 2020)
                       JANUARY 31, 2020                                B
        [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
                  K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
       Service Law – Respondent applied for appointment to the post
of Constable in Odisha State Police specifically stating in his        C
application that he was not involved in any criminal case –
Appointed – During verification, it was found that he was involved
in a case u/ss.294/323/324/326/336/337/427/379/506/34, IPC –
Respondent was discharged from service – Odisha Administrative
Tribunal rejected Original Application (OA) filed by the respondent
– Reversed by High Court – On appeal, held: Respondent was             D
seeking public employment in the State police service – His duties,
on appointment to the service, would be of a responsible character,
bearing intrinsically on the maintenance of law and order and with
consequences for personal liberty of citizens – To expect that an
applicant for such a position would be truthful in the disclosure of
information sought about the antecedents is a justifiable basis for    E
assessment of personality and character – Case against the
respondent cannot be regarded as being trivial in nature – Despite
being involved in the criminal case, the respondent suppressed these
facts – Criminal case was quashed in exercise of jurisdiction u/
s.482, CrPC on the basis of compromise between the parties much
after the order of discharge – Impugned order set aside – Order of     F
the Tribunal maintained – OA filed by the respondent is dismissed –
Orissa Police Rules – r.673.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1.1 The respondent was seeking public employment
                                                                       G
in the State police service. His duties, on appointment to the
service, would be of a responsible character, bearing intrinsically
on the maintenance of law and order and with consequences for
personal liberty of citizens. To expect that an applicant for such a
position would be truthful in the disclosure of information sought
about the antecedents is a justifiable basis for assessment of         H
                                643
644             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2020] 3 S.C.R.


A     personality and character. The employer can legitimately conclude
      that a person who has suppressed material facts does not deserve
      to be in its employment. In the present case, the case against the
      respondent cannot be regarded as being trivial in nature. That
      apart, it is evident that, despite being involved in the criminal
      case, the respondent suppressed these facts from the authorities
B
      while applying for the post of a Constable in the State Police. The
      criminal case was quashed in exercise of the jurisdiction under
      Section 482 of CrPC on the basis of a compromise between the
      parties much after the order of discharge. Hence, the view which
      has been taken by the High Court is palpably unsustainable. The
C     Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application. The impugned
      judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. While
      maintaining the order of the Tribunal, the OA filed by the
      respondent shall stand dismissed. [Paras 7, 8][647-H; 648-A-D]
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 893 of
D     2020.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 29.03.2018 of the High Court
      of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P. (C) No. 21868 of 2015.
            Shibashish Misra, S. Debabrata Reddy, Chandan Kumar Mandal,
      Advs. for the Appellants.
E
           Azim H. Laskar, Sachin Das, Adtiya Kumar Archiya, Ms. Sampa
      Sengupta Ray, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Advs. for the Respondents.
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
              DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
F
              1. Delay condoned.
              2. Leave granted.
           3. This appeal arises from a judgment and order of a Division
      Bench of the High Court of Orissa dated 29 March 2018.
G            4. The respondent applied for appointment to the post of a
      Constable in the Odisha State Police in the 6th IR Batallion, Khurda on
      29 October 2011. In response to a query, the respondent specifically
      stated in his application that he was not involved in any criminal case.
      He was appointed on 14 December 2011. A verification roll was provided
H
      STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS. v. GOBINDA BEHERA                                645
         [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

to him, which was to be filled up in terms of Rule 673 of the Orissa            A
Police Rules. On 22 May 2012, the Superintendent of Police, Puri informed
the Commandant that during the course of the verification of the character
and antecedents of the respondent, it was found that he was involved in
Balanga PS Case No 46 of 2009 under Sections 294/323/324/326/336/
337/427/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code 18601. On 6 July 2012, the
                                                                                B
respondent was called upon to explain why he had submitted a false
statement in the verification roll and in the application for appointment to
the post of Constable. The respondent was discharged from service on
26 July 2012, upon which he filed a proceeding before the Odisha
Administrative Tribunal2. The Tribunal rejected the Original Application3
on the ground that the respondent had furnished a false declaration.            C
This decision of the Tribunal was reversed by the High Court, by its
impugned judgment. The High Court did so on the basis of a judgment of
this Court in Avtar Singh v Union of India4 (Avtar Singh). The High
Court held that the Tribunal had not taken note of the fact that the criminal
proceeding had already been quashed and that the suppression in the
                                                                                D
circumstances was of a technical and trivial nature. The authorities were
directed to consider the case of the respondent for reinstatement in his
former post and to grant consequential service and financial benefits.
       5. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant and the respondent, the factual position, which has emerged
before the Court, is that the First Information Report in the criminal case     E
was lodged on 16 June 2009. The respondent surrendered before the
JMFC on 3 August 2009 and was released on bail in view of an order
dated 28 July 2009 which had been passed by the High Court in Bail
Application 10246 of 2009. The respondent applied for the post of a
Constable thereafter on 29 October 2011 and was appointed on 14                 F
December 2011. The respondent moved the High Court under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19735 for quashing the criminal
proceedings. The High Court, by its order dated 22 November 2013,
quashed the criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise between
the parties. This was after the order of discharge from service on 26
July 2012.                                                                      G

1
  “IPC”
2
  “Tribunal”
3
  “OA”
4
   (2016) 8 SCC 471
5
   ‘‘CrPC’’                                                                     H
646            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 3 S.C.R.


A           6. The position in law has been considered by this Court in a
      decision of a three-Judge Bench in Avtar Singh. The summary of the
      conclusions is contained in the following extract:
            “38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to
            conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case,
B           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
C           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.
D           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:
E           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 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
F           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.
            38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving
G           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.
H
     STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS. v. GOBINDA BEHERA                               647
        [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

      38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully      A
      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      B
      nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its
      discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such
      case.
      38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to
      multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume     C
      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       D
      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          E
      order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of
      suppression or submitting false information in verification form.
      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         F
      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.                                                 G
      38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio
      falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.”
      7. The respondent was seeking public employment in the State
police service. His duties, on appointment to the service, would be of a
                                                                              H
648             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2020] 3 S.C.R.


A     responsible character, bearing intrinsically on the maintenance of law
      and order and with consequences for personal liberty of citizens. To
      expect that an applicant for such a position would be truthful in the
      disclosure of information sought about the antecedents is a justifiable
      basis for assessment of personality and character. The employer can
      legitimately conclude that a person who has suppressed material facts
B
      does not deserve to be in its employment.
             8. In the present case, the case against the respondent cannot be
      regarded as being trivial in nature. That apart, it is evident that, despite
      being involved in the criminal case, the respondent suppressed these
      facts from the authorities while applying for the post of a Constable in
C     the State Police. The criminal case was quashed in exercise of the
      jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC on the basis of a compromise
      between the parties much after the order of discharge. Hence, the view
      which has been taken by the High Court is palpably unsustainable. The
      Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application.
D            9. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned
      judgment and order of the High Court dated 29 March 2018. While
      maintaining the order of the Tribunal, we order and direct that the OA
      filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as
      to costs.
E

      Divya Pandey                                                  Appeal allowed.




F




G




H