Holding

Deliberate suppression of material information about pending criminal cases in the verification roll justifies termination of service, and the disciplinary and appellate orders terminating the respondent’s employment are valid.

Summary

The respondent, a Constable (GD) in the CRPF, filled a verification roll in November 2011 denying any pending criminal cases, despite having been arrested, bailed, and having two FIRs registered against him earlier that year. The employer discovered the omission, issued a show‑cause notice, and after a departmental inquiry found that the respondent had deliberately concealed the cases and submitted forged documents, terminating his service. The respondent challenged the termination, and the High Court set aside the dismissal, directing reinstatement with back‑wages. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the purpose of verification of antecedents and held that suppression of material facts, especially for a law‑enforcement post, warrants dismissal and that the disciplinary and appellate orders were lawful. Consequently, the Court quashed the High Court’s judgment, restored the termination order, and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the respondent’s deliberate suppression of material information regarding pending criminal cases in the verification roll justified termination of his service.
Whether the disciplinary inquiry and the subsequent orders of termination and upholding by the appellate authority were procedurally fair and within the employer’s discretion.

Legislation cited

Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965s. 11, s. 15, s. 27
Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949s. 11
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 332, s. 427, s. 447, s. 504, s. 506
Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970s. 3(1)

Subjects

AppointmentVerification of disclosures made by a candidate to the employerSuppression of material informationSubmission of false informationTermination of serviceAntecedents of a candidate/employeeAscertain the suitability of the candidate/employee for the postVerification RollDisciplinary proceedings

Judgment

[2024] 7 S.C.R. 910 : 2024 INSC 550

Union of India and Others
v.
Shishu Pal @ Shiv Pal
(Civil Appeal No. 7933 of 2024)
23 July 2024
[Hima Kohli* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Appellants, if justified in terminating the services of the respondent
on the post of Constable (GD) in the CRPF after conducting a
departmental inquiry against him on receiving information that he
had deliberately failed to reveal in his Verification Roll that two
criminal cases were pending against him.

Headnotes†
Service law – Appointment – Verification of disclosures made
by a candidate to the employer – On facts, suppression of
material information, submission of false information in
the Verification Roll by the respondent at the time of his
appointment to the post of Constable in the CRPF, as regards
the registration of the FIR, his detention, he having applied for
bail while in judicial custody and being granting bail – Conduct
of departmental inquiry, leading to termination of service of
the respondent – Challenged to – Order of termination set
aside by the High Courts – Correctness:
Held: Purpose of seeking the relevant information with respect to
the antecedents of a candidate/employee is to enable the employer
to ascertain the suitability of the candidate/employee for the subject
post – No occasion for the Single Judge to have interfered in the
orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority terminating the service of
the respondent, duly upheld by the Appellate Authority – Respondent
does not deserve any latitude as it has been established beyond
doubt that he was all along aware of the FIR registered against
him with the Police Station, and the ensuing criminal cases – Also
respondent failed to disclose that he had remained in judicial custody
and on moving an application, was released on bail – All the said
events had occurred well before the respondent had filled up the
Verification Roll – He had wilfully withheld material information
from the appellants while filling up the Verification Roll – Further

* Author
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 911

Union of India and Others v. Shishu Pal @ Shiv Pal

misconducted himself when the appellants issued him a show-
cause notice calling upon him to explain his position and falsely
denied the allegations levelled against him in his reply to the
notice that ultimately led to initiation of disciplinary proceedings
against him – Appellants exercised their discretion as employers in
a reasonable manner – Disciplinary proceedings were conducted
in a fair manner and taken to their logical conclusion – Only
thereafter did the Disciplinary Authority pass an order terminating
the services of the respondent which order was upheld by the
appellant authority, for just and valid reasons – Thus, the decision
of the appellants to terminate the services of the respondent was
not unjustified, tainted by any malafides or arbitrariness or too
harsh – Impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court upholding the judgment passed by the Single Judge
quashed and set aside. [Paras 21, 24, 26-28]

Case Law Cited
Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others [2016] 7 SCR 445 :
(2016) 8 SCC 471; The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v.
Bhupendra Yadav [2023] 14 SCR 438 : (2023) SCC Online SC
1181; Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India and Others [2010] 13
SCR 1076 : (2010) 14 SCC 103; Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Prasaran
Nigam Limited and Another v. Anil Kanwaria [2021] 7 SCR 710 :
(2021) 10 SCC 136 – referred to.

List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970;
CRPF Act, 1949; Central Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 1965.

List of Keywords
Appointment; Verification of disclosures made by a candidate to the
employer; Suppression of material information; Submission of false
information; Termination of service; Antecedents of a candidate/
employee; Ascertain the suitability of the candidate/employee for
the post; Verification Roll; Disciplinary proceedings.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.7933 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2019 of the Gauhati
High Court in WA No. 248 of 2018
912 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Appearances for Parties
Nidhi Khanna, Priyanka Das, Nachiketa Joshi, Chitvan Singhal,
Akshay Nain, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Siddhartha Sinha, N.C. Zeliang,
Ms. Megha Saxena, Aditya Kashyap, Shashvat Pant, Advs. for the
Appellants.
Brijesh Kumar Gupta, Ajay Kumar, Advs. for the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment
Hima Kohli, J
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants – Director General, Central Reserve Police Force1
and others have preferred the present appeal against the judgment
and order dated 7th February, 2019 passed by the Division Bench
of the High Court of Gauhati in a writ appeal2 upholding the order
dated 27th March, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in a
writ petition3 setting aside the order of termination of services of the
respondent by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 24th June,
2014 duly upheld by the Appellate Authority on 23rd September, 2014.
Resultantly, the appellants were directed to reinstate the respondent
in service with all consequential benefits and 50% back-wages.
However, liberty was granted to the appellants to impose a minor
punishment on the respondent instead of terminating his services.
The appeal preferred by the appellants against the judgment of the
learned Single Judge has been dismissed by the Division Bench
that was of the opinion that as on 30th November, 2011, when the
respondent was issued an appointment order and he had filled up
the Verification Roll, no summons had been issued against him in a
criminal case registered on 4th September, 2011 nor was he aware
of the pendency of the said proceedings and therefore, there was no
question of his having deliberately withheld any material information
regarding his antecedents from his employer. Aggrieved by the said
judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

1 For short ‘the CRPF’
2 Writ Appeal No.248 of 2018
3 WP(C) No. 5986/2014
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 913

Union of India and Others v. Shishu Pal @ Shiv Pal

Factual Matrix
3. The respondent was appointed on the post of a Constable (GD)
in the CRPF and inducted in Group Centre, CRPF, Lucknow. On
completion of his basic training, he reported to 149 Battalion. At
the time of his recruitment on 17th November, 2011, the respondent
submitted his character certificate and antecedent certificate, issued
by the District Magistrate, District Mainpuri (Uttar Pradesh).
4. As a part of completion of requisite formalities related to recruitment,
Group Centre, Lucknow directed all employees including the
respondent herein to fill up the Verification Roll. The said Verification
Roll stated that if it was found during the service period that the
employee had given incorrect details in the verification letter or
concealed any correct information, his services could be terminated.
Column 12 of the Verification Roll specifically directed the employees
to state in clear terms whether he had ever been arrested or
prosecuted or whether any case was pending against him in any
Court of law at the time of filling up the form. The answer to a series
of questions on the same lines was required to be given in a ‘Yes’
or ‘No’ format while again cautioning the employee that furnishing
of any false information or suppression of any factual information
would be a disqualification and likely to render the employee unfit
for employment under the government. A warning was also issued
that if any false information was furnished or there was suppression
of any factual information that came to the notice of the employer
during the course of service of a person, his services would be liable
to be terminated.
5. The respondent filled up the Verification Roll and gave a reply in the
negative in response to all the questions posed in column 12 of the
form. Thereafter, verification of the character and antecedents of the
respondent was undertaken by the appellants who approached the
District Magistrate, Mainpuri, U.P. vide letter dated 19th December,
2011. A reply was received on 21st March, 2012 stating inter alia
that no adverse remarks were found against the respondent which
could disqualify him from service in the CRPF.
6. Subsequently, a letter dated 29th December, 2012 was received in
the office of the appellant No. 3 - Commandant, 149 Battalion stating
inter alia that the respondent had concealed information regarding
some cases registered against him on the basis of a First Information
914 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Report4 under Sections 147/148/149/447/332/427/504/506 of the
Indian Penal Code5 and under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh
Control of Goondas Act, 1970.6 Based on the said letter, steps were
taken to re-verify the character and antecedents of the respondent. In
the reverification process, the District Magistrate, Mainpuri confirmed
that Criminal Case No. 459/2011 had been registered against the
respondent and the matter was pending before the Court. A show
cause notice was issued to the respondent, vide Memorandum
dated 9th July, 2013 detailing the charges levelled against him. Vide
reply dated 1st August, 2013, the respondent categorically denied
all the charges as false. This led to initiation of an inquiry against
the respondent.
DOMESTIC ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS
7. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report stating inter alia that on
examining various documents presented before him and on hearing
the respondent, it transpired that not only had he withheld material
information in respect of Criminal Case No. 459/2011 and Criminal
Case No. 537/2011 registered against him at Barnahal Police Station,
Mainpuri which were pending in the Court, he had also furnished
fake reports purportedly issued by the SHO of the area on 10 th
October, 2013, 14th November, 2013 and 20th March, 2014 and that on
enquiring, the Station House Officer7 had given in writing that neither
had he prepared the reports purportedly submitted to the authorities
in his writing, nor had he signed them and the said reports were not
even issued by the concerned Police Station. It is noteworthy that
the said reports were submitted by the respondent to the appellants
and they recorded that the respondent was unaware of the case
registered against him in respect of Criminal Case No.459/2011
and that the said case was closed on a compromise being arrived
at with the complainant.
8. On examining the authenticated verification reports received
subsequently from the District Officer, District Mainpuri, U.P.,

4 Criminal Case No. 459/2011 and Criminal Case No. 537/2011 @ FIR No. 76 of 2011 dated 4th September,
2011 at Barnhal Police Station, District Mainpuri, U.P.
5 For short ‘IPC’;
6 For short ‘UP Goondas Act’
7 For short ‘SHO’
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 915

Union of India and Others v. Shishu Pal @ Shiv Pal

Superintendent of Police, District Mainpuri, U.P. and the SHO,
Barnhal Police Station, District Mainpuri, U.P., the Inquiry Officer
concluded as follows:
“Report of Investigating Officer
Under Office Order No. P. VIII-2/2013- 149-Establishment-
Two (S. Pal) dated 08.03.2014 of Commandant-140
Battalion CRPF undersigned providing a copy of the
charges leveled against Force No. 115184265 Constable/
GD Shishupal F/ 149 Battalion, CRPF under Rule 27
of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 read
with Rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 and the ongoing
departmental inquiry proceedings against him order
for completion was received. I have concluded the
investigation on the basis of all the witnesses, relevanl
documents and evidence presented before me during
the departmental inquiry, the departmental inquiry report
prepared by me is as follows -
xxx xxx xxx
8. On the basis of authenticated verification reports received
from District Officer District Mainpuri U.P., Superintendent
of Police District Nainpuri UP, SHO Barnhal Police Station
District Mainpuri Uttar Pradesh, the following facts come
to light:-
A) According to the report dated 05.05.2014 sent by the
Court Additional District Magistrate Mainpuri, after
receiving the police report against Shri Shishupal
alias Shivpal son of Bharat Singh resident of
Emahasan Nagar police station Barnhal district
Mainpuri (accused), registering case no. 236 under
Goonda Act notice dated 11.11.2011 was issued and
instructions were given to appear in the court on
19.11.2011 but the accused did not appear in the court
on the appointed date. The accused had stated in his
statement given during his first examination that he
was staying in Shikohabad for taking SSC coaching
from 03.06.2011 at Lakshy Competition Classes, near
Pratappur Chauraha, Shikohabad, District Firozabad,
Uttar Pradesh due to which he was not aware of
916 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the facts of the case being filed against him.The
accused had produced a copy of the certificate dated
08.10.2013 issued by Lakshy Competition Classes
Shikohabad, Firozabad in evidence of his statement.
In which it was shown that Shishupal son of Bharat
Singh, is a native of Emahasan Nagar police station,
Barnhal district, Mainpuri. He was studying coaching
at his place since last year. While doing coaching,
there was a dispute between them and at that time he
was implicated in the dispute. He was doing coaching
at that time. He used to come to study daily from
30.06.2011 (Evidence No.09) but after verification
by the special messenger, no such coaching institute
was found at the address given in the certificate. This
makes it clear that during the said period the accused
was present in his hometown and even after the case
registered against him in the Barnahal police station
was in his knowledge, he joined CRPF on 30.11.2011
while filling his verification letter, he did not disclose
the said case and has deliberately hidden this fact.
B) From the time of joining this force and filling the
verification form till now, the accused has been
submitting various fake documents to protect his job
(to achieve his personal interest) and has given false
statements to prove himself innocent. Therefore, the
accused is also accused of presenting wrong facts
and making and presenting fake documents.
C) During verification of the copies of police reports
dated 10.10.2013, 14.11.2013 and dated 20.03.2014
issued by the police station Barnhal presented by
the accused in his defence, SHO Barnhal Mainpuri
declared those reports as fake and stated that these
certificates were neither in his knowledge nor have
the SHO signed them nor have these reports been
issued by the Barnahal Mainpuri police station.
Rather, this department has also been misled by the
accused personnel by preparing it in a completely fake
manner. Therefore, this act of the accused completely
proves his criminal mentality and at present he has
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 917

Union of India and Others v. Shishu Pal @ Shiv Pal

presented wrong facts even during the departmental
investigation.
9. It is clear from the verification certification reports of
the documents submitted by the accused that the accused
has either prepared or got the documentary evidence
prepared in a fake manner and from the beginning of this
departmental investigation till now, the accused has been
presenting as per his wish from time to time during his trial
and re-trial. Therefore, the facts and documents presented
by the accused during the investigation are beyond veracity
and cannot be trusted. Therefore, the allegation leveled
against the accused in Item -1 of Clause- I is completely
proved beyond any doubt.”
DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY AND APPELLATE
AUTHORITY
9. The said Inquiry Report was placed before the Disciplinary Authority
namely, appellant No. 3 – Commandant, 149 Battalion who observed
that while filling his character and antecedent Verification Roll at the
time of his appointment, the respondent had deliberately concealed
registration of two cases against him namely, Criminal Case No.
459/2011 and Criminal Case No. 537/2011 and submitted photocopies
of fake documents purportedly issued by various authorities. As a
result, an order was passed directing the respondent to be removed
from service forthwith.
10. Aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 24th June, 2014, passed
by the Disciplinary Authority, the respondent preferred an appeal
before the Appellate Authority namely, appellant No. 2 - Deputy
Inspector General, CRPF Group Centre, Silchar, Assam which was
also rejected vide order dated 23rd September, 2014 observing that
the punishment of removal from service imposed upon him was
proportionate to the severity of his crime.
FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT
11. The aforesaid decisions were challenged by the respondent in a writ
petition8 filed before the High Court of Gauhati which was allowed
by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 27th March, 2018.

8 Writ Petion No. 5986 of 2014
918 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

The learned Single Judge set aside the dismissal order passed by
the appellants against the respondent on the ground that when the
respondent was selected for appointment to the post of Constable(GD)
and had filled up his Verification Roll stating inter alia there was no
criminal case pending against him, he was not aware of the said
criminal cases and it was only after the order was passed by the
appellants on 24th June, 2014, removing him from service that he
made inquiries about the criminal case pending against him and
that later on, he had been acquitted by the learned Additional Civil
Judge(Junior Division), Mainpuri in Criminal Case No. 459/2011. It
was also observed that the respondent was fairly young when the
incident had taken place and there was possibility of his having
committed an indiscretion while furnishing incorrect information
in the Verification Roll but not enough for the appellants to have
adopted an unduly harsh approach which was disproportionate to the
offence allegedly committed by the respondent. As a consequence,
the order date 24th June, 2014 passed by the Disciplinary Authority
and the order dated 23rd September, 2014 passed by the Appellate
Authority were quashed and set aside and the appellants were
directed to reinstate the respondent in service with all consequential
benefits along with 50% backwages. At the same time, liberty was
granted to the appellants to reconsider the matter and impose a
minor punishment on the respondent, as prescribed under Section
11 of the CRPF Act, 1949, if so advised. The aforesaid order was
unsuccessfully challenged by the appellants in an Intra-Court Appeal9
filed by them which order is the subject matter of consideration in
the present appeal.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPELLANTS
12. Ms. Nidhi Khanna, learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the
impugned judgment on the ground that the High Court has failed to
appreciate that the respondent had committed grave misconduct by
suppressing material facts in his Verification Roll about his involvement
in Criminal Case No. 459/2011 and Criminal Case No. 537/2011; that
the appellants were justified in removing the respondent from service
on the ground of suppression of material facts and even on the date

9 Writ Appeal No. 248 of 2018
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 919

Union of India and Others v. Shishu Pal @ Shiv Pal

when he was removed from service, Criminal Case No. 537/2011
was pending against him and it was only subsequently that he was
acquitted in the said case on 22nd October, 2014 which alone could
not improve his case of suppression of material facts; that the offences
mentioned in Criminal Cases No. 459/2011 and 537/2011 were grave
in nature and the respondent was well aware of the pendency of
the said cases at the time of filling up the Verification Roll. Learned
counsel contended that the High Court has failed to appreciate that
when it comes to uniformed service, suppression or false information
is taken seriously as such a service requires a higher level of integrity.
The respondent cannot claim a right of service or appointment
or continuity of service when it has been established that he had
deliberately withheld material information relating to his antecedents.
Any relaxation given to the respondent would run against the settled
procedure established under the CRPF Act, 1949 and CRPF Rules,
1955 as also OM dated 19th May, 1993 issued by the Department of
Personnel and Training, Government of India read with Rule 11 of
the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
196510 which mandates that when a government servant furnishes
false information to secure appointment, he should not be retained
in service and should be dismissed after conducting an inquiry.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT
13. On his part, Mr. Brijesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the
respondent has supported the impugned judgment dated 07th
February, 2019 and the findings returned by the learned Single Judge
in the judgment dated 27th March, 2018 and urged that while setting
aside the order of dismissal from service, an option was given to
the appellants to reconsider the case of the respondent and award
him lesser punishment as against the major punishment of removal
from service imposed on him, which option is still available. Learned
counsel stated that the crime in question that resulted in registration
of a FIR against the respondent and his family members was related
to a land dispute amongst the villagers and the Criminal Court had
subsequently acquitted the respondent vide order 22nd October, 2014;
that it was only after the inquiry was initiated against the respondent

10 CCS(CCA) Rules
920 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

on the basis of the Memorandum of Charges dated 09th July, 2013,
that he made inquiries at his level and for the first time gathered
knowledge about the case relating to a quarrel between two parties
in the village over a plot of land under the possession of his family
members where his name was also falsely included. Learned counsel
asserted that no warrant or summon had been issued against the
respondent which fact was ignored by the appellants at the time of
terminating his service. In fact, respondent had been falsely implicated
in the criminal cases and deserves leniency.
DISCUSSION
14. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the parties, gone through the records and perused the impugned
judgment. The question that arises for consideration in the instant case
is whether the appellants were justified in terminating the services
of the respondent on the post of Constable (GD) in the CRPF after
conducting a departmental inquiry against him on receiving information
that he had deliberately failed to reveal in his Verification Roll that
two criminal cases were pending against him.
15. It is an admitted position that the respondent was required to furnish
all the relevant factual information as required in the Verification Roll
issued by the CRPF. The Verification Roll started with three sets of
warnings that are extracted below :
“Warning
1. The furnishing of false information or suppression of
any factual information in the verification Roll would be
a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate
unfit for employment under the Government.
2. If detained, convicted, debarred etc. subsequent to the
completion and submission of this Form the details
should be communicated immediately to the authority
to whom the Verification Roll has been sent earlier
failing which it will be deemed to be a suppression
of factual information.
3. If the fact that false information has been furnished
or that there has been suppression of any factual
information in the Verification Roll comes to notice at
any time during the service of a person, his services
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 921

Union of India and Others v. Shishu Pal @ Shiv Pal

would be liable to be terminated.”
At the end of the Verification Roll, the employee was required to
reply in the affirmative or in the negative to specific queries as
extracted below:
“(a) Have you ever been arrested?
(b) Have you ever been prosecuted?
(c) Have you ever been kept under detention?
(d) Have you ever been bound down?
(e) Have you ever been fined by a court of law?
(f) Have you ever been convicted by a Court of Law for
any offence?
(g) Have you ever been debarred from any examination
or rusticated by any University or any other educational
Authority /institution?
(h) Have you ever been debarred /disqualified by any
Public Service Commission/Staff Selection Board for any
of its examination /selection?
(i) Is any case pending against you in any court of law at
the time of filling up this Verification Roll?
(j) Is any case pending against you in any University or
any other Educational Authority/Institution at the time of
filling up this Verification Roll?
(k) Whether discharged/expelled/withdrawn from any
Training Institution under the Government or otherwise?
If the answer to any of the above mentioned questions is
‘Yes’ given full particulars of the case/ arrest/ Detention /
fine/ conviction/sentence/punishment etc. and/or the nature
of the case pending in the Court/ University/Educational
Authority etc. at the time of filling up this Form.”
16. The respondent herein filled up the Verification Roll on 30th November,
2011 and in response to the specific queries posed in the last two
pages, elected to reply in the negative. Subsequently, when a
private party submitted a written complaint to the appellants that the
922 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

respondent had deliberately withheld material information in relation
to two criminal cases registered against him at PS, Barnhal, District
Mainpuri, U.P. under several sections of the IPC and the U.P. Goondas
Act, a show cause notice dated 03rd May, 2013 was issued to the
respondent enclosing therewith all the relevant information to which
he responded on 13th May, 2013, specifically denying the fact that
no case was registered against him or was pending trial or that he
had never been arrested by the police or detained in judicial custody.
17. The records however reveal that the respondent was arrayed as a
co-accused in Criminal Case No. 459/2011. He was taken into judicial
custody and was granted bail by the trial Court on 04th October,
2011. On 13th November, 2013 charges were framed against the
respondent and the other co-accused and the matter was set down
to trial. All the incidents relating to registration of the FIR, detention
of the respondent, his having applied for bail while in judicial custody
and being granting bail vide order dated 04th October, 2011 had
transpired much before he was called upon by the appellants to fill
up the Verification Roll, i.e., well before 30th November, 2011. Despite
that, the respondent elected not to disclose the information pertaining
to the aforesaid cases to the appellants and replied in the negative
to the specific queries posed to him in the Verification Roll, as have
been extracted above. He adopted the same stand even after a
notice to show cause was issued to him by the appellants calling
upon him to explain his conduct. On his categorically denying the
allegations levelled against him, the appellants proceeded to follow
the prescribed procedure of conducting a departmental inquiry against
the respondent for which purpose, an Inquiry Officer was appointed.
18. A perusal of the Inquiry Report submitted by the Inquiry Officer reveals
that the respondent had duly participated in the departmental inquiry
from the beginning to the end, the statements of all the prosecution
witnesses were recorded in his presence and the respondent was
also afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. He
was duly furnished copies of the statements of all the prosecution
witnesses and was permitted to lead evidence in his defence, which
he did. Only after conducting a full-fledged inquiry did the Inquiry
Officer submit his report clearly stating therein that the allegations
levelled against the respondent in the Office Memorandum dated
9th July, 2013 to the effect that he had committed misconduct and
concealed the fact that two criminal cases were pending against
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 923

Union of India and Others v. Shishu Pal @ Shiv Pal

him when he had furnished the information in the Verification Roll,
were correct. Further, the departmental inquiry recorded the fact that
the respondent had prepared or got prepared forged police reports
and certificates favouring him which were in fact never prepared or
issued by the SHO, P.S., Barnhal.
19. The aforesaid sequence of events demolishes the plea taken by
the respondent that he was innocent and had no knowledge of his
implication in the criminal cases mentioned in the charge memo and
therefore, there was no occasion for him to have concealed material
facts at the time of filling up the Verification Rolls. Not only was the
respondent aware of the fact that he had been named in the FIR,
he was taken into judicial custody and had applied for bail which
was granted by the trial Court on 04th October, 2011, much before
the date he filled up the Verification Roll. The other plea taken by
learned counsel for the respondent that in any case, the Criminal
Court did not find any merit in the case that was trivial in nature
and the respondent was accordingly acquitted vide order dated 22nd
October, 2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri
also does not hold any water inasmuch as the judgment itself notes
that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt and for that reason, it was considered appropriate to absolve
the respondent and the other co-accused by giving them benefit of
doubt. In other words, it was not a case of clean acquittal but a case
of paucity of evidence that led to the acquittal of the respondent and
the other co-accused. In any event, in our opinion, not much would
turn on the subsequent acquittal of the respondent on the basis
of the judgment dated 22nd October, 2014 for the reason that the
termination of his services is not premised on the pendency of the
criminal cases or their outcome, but on the failure on the part of the
respondent to have truthfully disclosed in the Verification Roll that
criminal cases were pending against him at the relevant point in time.
JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS AND THEIR APPLICATION
20. Without burdening this judgment with a catena of judicial precedents
on the aspect of suppression of material information, submission of
false information in the Verification Roll by an aspirant of a job when
the incumbent has faced criminal prosecution or has been arrested
or on account of pendency of a criminal case, we may directly cite
the much quoted decision of a three-Judges Bench of this Court in
924 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others11 where broad guidelines
were laid down regarding the yardstick to be applied for verification of
disclosures made by a candidate to the employer so as to decide as
to whether the applicant would be fit for appointment or not. Following
were the pertinent observations made in Avatar Singh (supra):
“29. The verification of antecedents is necessary to find
out fitness of incumbent, in the process if a declarant is
found to be of good moral character on due verification
of antecedents, merely by suppression of involvement
in trivial offence which was not pending on date of
filling attestation form, whether he may be deprived of
employment? There may be case of involving moral
turpitude/serious offence in which employee has been
acquitted but due to technical reasons or giving benefit
of doubt. There may be situation when person has been
convicted of an offence before filling verification form or
case is pending and information regarding it has been
suppressed, whether employer should wait till outcome
of pending criminal case to take a decision or in case
when action has been initiated there is already conclusion
of criminal case resulting in conviction/acquittal as the
case may be. The situation may arise for consideration
of various aspects in a case where disclosure has been
made truthfully of required information, then also authority
is required to consider and verify fitness for appointment.
Similarly in case of suppression also, if in the process of
verification of information, certain information comes to
notice then also employer is required to take a decision
considering various aspects before holding incumbent as
unfit. If on verification of antecedents a person is found
fit at the same time authority has to consider effect of
suppression of a fact that he was tried for trivial offence
which does not render him unfit, what importance to be
attached to such non-disclosure. Can there be single
yardstick to deal with all kinds of cases?
xxx xxx xxx

11 [2016] 7 SCR 445 : (2016) 8 SCC 471
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 925

Union of India and Others v. Shishu Pal @ Shiv Pal

36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon
the nature of post, higher post would involve more
rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed
service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature
of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to
be considered by authorities concerned considering
post/nature of duties/services and power has to be
exercised on due consideration of various aspects.
xxx xxx xxx
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 rendered an incumbent unfit for
926 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

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.
38.4.3. 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.
38.5. 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.
38.7. 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.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 927

Union of India and Others v. Shishu Pal @ Shiv Pal

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.
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.”
(emphasis added)
21. Ultimately, the purpose of seeking the relevant information with respect
to the antecedents of a candidate/employee is to enable the employer
to ascertain the suitability of the candidate/employee for the subject
post. In The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Bhupendra
Yadav12 (authored by one of us, Hima Kohli, J), citing the decision
in Avtar Singh (supra), the following observations were made:
“16. As can be discerned from the above decision, an
employer has the discretion to terminate or condone an
omission in the disclosure made by a candidate. While
doing so, the employer must act with prudence, keep in
mind the nature of the post and the duties required to be
discharged. Higher the post, more stringent ought to be
the standards to be applied. Even if a truthful disclosure
has been made, the employer is well within its right to
examine the fitness of a candidate and in a concluded

12 [2023] 14 SCR 438 : (2023) SCC Online SC 1181/ 2023INSC837
928 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

criminal case, keep in mind the nature of the offence
and verify whether the acquittal is honourable or benefit
has been extended on technical reasons. If the employer
arrives at a conclusion that the incumbent is of a suspect
character or unfit for the post, he may not be appointed
or continued in service.”
22. We may also profitably cite the decision in Daya Shankar Yadav v.
Union of India and Others13 where the consequences of examining
the information received from a candidate with respect to his/her
antecedents regarding suitability for the post have been discussed
as follows:
“15. When an employee or a prospective employee declares
in a verification form, answers to the queries relating to
character and antecedents, the verification thereof can
therefore lead to any of the following consequences:
(a) If the declarant has answered the questions in the
affirmative and furnished the details of any criminal
case (wherein he was convicted or acquitted by giving
benefit of doubt for want of evidence), the employer may
refuse to offer him employment (or if already employed
on probation, discharge him from service), if he is found
to be unfit having regard to the nature and gravity of the
offence/crime in which he was involved.
(b) On the other hand, if the employer finds that the criminal
case disclosed by the declarant related to offences which
were technical, or of a nature that would not affect the
declarant’s fitness for employment, or where the declarant
had been honourably acquitted and exonerated, the
employer may ignore the fact that the declarant had been
prosecuted in a criminal case and proceed to appoint him
or continue him in employment.
(c) Where the declarant has answered the questions
in the negative and on verification it is found that
the answers were false, the employer may refuse to
employ the declarant (or discharge him, if already

13 [2010] 13 SCR 1076 : (2010) 14 SCC 103
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 929

Union of India and Others v. Shishu Pal @ Shiv Pal

employed), even if the declarant had been cleared of the
charges or is acquitted. This is because when there is
suppression or non-disclosure of material information
bearing on his character, that itself becomes a reason
for not employing the declarant.
(d) Where the attestation form or verification form does not
contain proper or adequate queries requiring the declarant
to disclose his involvement in any criminal proceedings,
or where the candidate was unaware of initiation of
criminal proceedings when he gave the declarations in
the verification roll/attestation form, then the candidate
cannot be found fault with, for not furnishing the relevant
information. But if the employer by other means (say
police verification or complaints, etc.) learns about the
involvement of the declarant, the employer can have
recourse to courses (a) or (b) above.”
(emphasis added)
23. In Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Another
v. Anil Kanwaria,14 this Court had opined that even where there was
a subsequent acquittal, an employee cannot claim appointment as a
matter of right having furnished false information or having indulged
in suppression of material facts relating to a pending criminal case.
A dent in the credibility of such an employee from the perspective
of the employer has been mentioned in the following words:
“14. The issue/question may be considered from another
angle, from the employer’s point of view. The question is
not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute
of trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently
acquitted or not. The question is about the credibility
and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the
initial stage of the employment i.e. while submitting
the declaration/verification and/or applying for a post
made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/
or suppressing material fact of having involved in a
criminal case. If the correct facts would have been

14 [2021] 7 SCR 710 : (2021) 10 SCC 136
930 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

disclosed, the employer might not have appointed
him. Then the question is of trust. Therefore, in such
a situation, 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. At the cost of repetition,
it is observed and as observed hereinabove in catena of
decision such an employee cannot claim the appointment
and/or continue to be in service as a matter of right.”
(emphasis added)
24. In the case at hand, the learned Single Judge has erred in
accepting the submission made on behalf of the respondent that
it was only after the appellants passed the order dated 24th June,
2014 removing him from service that he had inquired about the
criminal case pending against him and later on, the respondent
was acquitted in Criminal Case No. 459/2011. As noted above,
the said observations run contrary to the record itself that clearly
reveals that the respondent was well-aware of the fact that a
criminal case had been registered against him, he was taken into
judicial custody and had subsequently applied for bail along with
other co-accused in the said case which was granted by the trial
Court on 04th October, 2011. All the aforesaid events had occurred
well before 30th November, 2011, the date on which the respondent
had filled up the Verification Roll. Therefore, it has to be observed
that the respondent had complete knowledge of the registration of
the FIR and pendency of the criminal cases. Despite that, he had
wilfully withheld material information from the appellants while filling
up the Verification Roll. He had further misconducted himself when
the appellants issued him a show-cause notice calling upon him
to explain his position and falsely denied the allegations levelled
against him in his reply to the notice to show cause that ultimately
led to initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him.
25. As for the observations made by the learned Single Judge that
the respondent was a young man and his indiscretion ought to be
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 931

Union of India and Others v. Shishu Pal @ Shiv Pal

condoned by imposing a minor penalty upon him instead of removing
him from service, the answer lies in the following observations made
in Bhupendra Yadav (supra):
“24.…..The yardstick to be applied in cases where the
appointment sought relates to a Law Enforcement Agency,
ought to be much more stringent than those applied to a
routine vacancy. One must be mindful of the fact that once
appointed to such a post, a responsibility would be cast on
the respondent of maintaining law and order in the society,
enforcing the law, dealing with arms and ammunitions,
apprehending suspected criminals and protecting the
life and property of the public at large. Therefore, the
standard of rectitude to be applied to any person seeking
appointment in a Law Enforcement Agency must always
be higher and more rigourous for the simple reason that
possession of a higher moral conduct is one of the basic
requirements for appointment to a post as sensitive as
that in the police service.”
CONCLUSION
26. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case,
we are of the firm view that there was no occasion for the learned
Single Judge to have interfered in the orders dated 24th June, 2014
passed by the Disciplinary Authority terminating the service of the
respondent, duly upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order dated
23rd September, 2014. The Appellate Court fell into the same error
when it observed that it was incumbent for the appellants to have
proven the fact that pendency of the criminal case was within the
knowledge of the respondent and the said information had been
deliberately withheld by him. The records speak to the contrary
and make short shrift of such a plea taken by the respondent. The
respondent does not deserve any latitude as it has been established
beyond doubt that he was all along aware of the FIR registered
against him with Barnhal Police Station, Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh
and the ensuing criminal cases. Not just that, the respondent failed
to disclose that he had remained in judicial custody and on moving
an application, was released on bail by the trial Court along with
other co-accused.
932 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

27. In our opinion, the appellants have exercised their discretion as
employers in a reasonable manner. On receiving a complaint against
the respondent, not only was a show cause notice issued to him,
all the relevant information was also furnished. On receiving his
categorical denial in reply, the appellants proceeded with disciplinary
proceedings against the respondent. The said proceedings were
conducted in a fair manner and taken to their logical conclusion. Only
thereafter did the Disciplinary Authority pass an order terminating the
services of the respondent which order was upheld by the Appellant
Authority, for just and valid reasons. Therefore, it cannot be urged
that the decision of the appellants to terminate the services of the
respondent was unjustified, tainted by any malafides or arbitrariness
or too harsh.
28. As a result, we have no hesitation in quashing and setting aside
the impugned judgment dated 07th February, 2019 passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court upholding the judgment dated 27th
March, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge. The order dated
24th June, 2014 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and endorsed
by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 23rd September, 2014,
are restored and upheld. The present appeal is allowed. Parties are
left to bear their own expenses.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi jain