UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusDILIP KUMAR MALLICK

1056            SUPREME COURT
                          [2022]REPORTS
                                 2 S.C.R. 1056             [2022] 2 S.C.R.


 A                        UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                                        v.
                           DILIP KUMAR MALLICK
                         (Civil Appeal No. 2754 of 2022)
 B             (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 26402 OF 2019)
                                 APRIL 5, 2022
          [DINESH MAHESHWARI AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
              Service law: Central Reserve Police Force – Punishment of
 C     Removal – In the instant case, respondent was removed from the
       service on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him
       for offence under ss.341, 323, 294, 337, 506 r/w s.34 IPC before
       the competent court but, while filling up the verification roll, he
       concealed the said fact and such an act was prejudicial to the
       discipline of CRPF – Appellate Authority declined to interfere with
 D
       the decision of the Disciplinary Authority – Respondent appealed
       before the High Court, and the Single Judge dismissed the appeal –
       However, Division Bench of the High Court held that the punishment
       of removal from service was too harsh and directed the appellants
       to impose ‘any lesser punishment as deemed just and proper’ –
 E     Hence instant appeal – Held: Admittedly, at the time of filling up
       the verification roll, the criminal case was pending – Respondent
       cannot feign ignorance about the said case because he indeed
       surrendered before the Trial Court and was granted bail – He had
       indeed left the relevant columns in the verification roll blank; and
       thereby, had been wanting in forthrightness while filling up the
 F
       verification roll for employment – That being the position, the
       findings whereby he is held guilty of misconduct of suppression/
       concealment of material information, cannot be faulted at – In fact,
       such findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate
       Authority were affirmed by the Single Judge as also by the Division
 G     Bench in the order impugned – Division Bench was not justified in
       interfering with the quantum of punishment – In the given set of
       facts and circumstances, where suppression of relevant information
       is not a matter of dispute, there cannot be any legal basis for the
       Court to interfere in the manner that the employer be directed to
       impose ‘any lesser punishment’, as directed by the Division Bench
 H
                                      1056
        UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. DILIP KUMAR MALLICK                            1057


of the High Court – The submissions seeking to evoke sympathy                   A
and calling for leniency cannot lead to any relief in favour of the
respondent.
      Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others (2016) 8 SCC
      471 : [2016] 7 SCR 445 – relied on.
      Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar                          B
      (2011) 4 SCC 644 : [2011] 3 SCR 964 – referred to.
                         Case Law Reference
[2011] 3 SCR 964                     referred to              Para 5
[2016] 7 SCR 445                     relied on                Para 7.1          C
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2754
of 2022.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 25.03.2019 of the High Court
of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Appeal No.223 of 2018.
                                                                                D
     B. V. Balaram Das, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, G. S. Makkar, Ms. Nidhi
Khanna, A. K. Sharma, Advs. for the Appellants.
     Pijush K. Roy, Mrs. Kakali Roy, Ms. Ankita Sharma, Rajan K.
Chourasia, Advs. for the Respondent.
      The Order of the Court was passed by                                      E

      DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
      1. Leave granted.
       2. The challenge herein is to the judgment and order dated
25.03.2019 in Writ Appeal No. 223 of 2018, whereby the Division Bench           F
of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, in partial disapproval of the
order dated 10.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High
Court in Writ Petition(C) No. 24085 of 2018, interfered with the
punishment of removal from service, as awarded to the respondent; and
directed the present appellants to impose ‘any lesser punishment as
                                                                                G
deemed just and proper’.
      3. The only question for consideration in this appeal is, as to whether
the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in interfering with the
quantum of punishment awarded to the respondent? The background
aspects may be noticed to the extent relevant for the present purpose.
                                                                                H
1058            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 2 S.C.R.


 A            4. In the year 2003, the respondent was appointed under the
       Central Reserve Police Force (‘CRPF’) Group Centre, Bhubaneswar.
       While continuing in service, a departmental inquiry was initiated against
       him on the allegations that though he was involved in Kendrapara Police
       Station Case No. 349 dated 26.09.2001 for the offences punishable under
       Sections 341, 323, 294, 337, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
 B
       Code and was charge-sheeted for the said offences on 01.12.2001; and
       though the said criminal case was pending before the competent Court
       but, while filling up the verification roll, he suppressed/concealed the
       said fact and such an act was prejudicial to the discipline of CRPF. The
       respondent participated in the inquiry and ultimately, he was awarded
 C     the punishment of removal by the Disciplinary Authority. The appeal
       taken by the respondent was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority
       on 31.07.2009.
              5. However, on 02.02.2012, a writ petition filed by the respondent
       bearing No. 14945 of 2009 was allowed by the High Court to the extent
 D     that the Appellate Authority was directed to reconsider the appeal within
       two months in light of the judgment of this Court in the case of
       Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar: (2011) 4 SCC
       644. The Appellate Authority, thereafter, passed a fresh order on
       22.08.2012, again dismissing the appeal and declining to interfere with
 E     the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. The respondent again
       approached the High Court by way of the writ petition leading to the
       present appeal, being W.P.(C) No. 24085 of 2012.
              6. The plea taken by the present respondent before the learned
       Single Judge in this writ petition was that, he had not suppressed any
 F     information so as to be held guilty in disciplinary proceedings. In respect
       of the particular column in the verification roll, it was submitted, he had
       neither mentioned ‘Yes’ nor mentioned ‘No’ as regards the criminal case.
       It was also asserted that he was neither arrested nor remanded to judicial
       custody; and the matter having been settled between the parties in the
 G     village, he did not know about the pendency of the case and hence, did
       not state any information in that regard in the relevant column of the
       verification roll. The present appellants opposed the writ petition with
       the submissions that the respondent left the relevant column blank, though
       the criminal case was pending against him and such an act was that of
       concealment/suppression of material facts.
 H
       UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. DILIP KUMAR MALLICK                           1059
                 [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

       6.1. The learned Single Judge did not agree with the contentions       A
of the present respondent (writ petitioner) and on 10.04.2018, dismissed
the writ petition while concluding that he had concealed the facts about
his involvement in the criminal case.
       7. The intra-court appeal against the order so passed by the learned
Single Judge was considered and decided by the Division Bench of the          B
High Court by the impugned order dated 25.03.2019. The Division Bench
of the High Court examined all the contentions raised before it with
reference to several decisions of this Court and found no reason to
interfere with the basic findings of the learned Single Judge as regards
guilt/delinquency of the appellant and affirmed the conclusion in that
                                                                              C
regard in the following terms: -
             “In view of the aforesaid settled positions of Law and the
      facts and circumstances of the present case as to non-supply of
      required information of which the petitioner-appellant has been
      found guilty, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with
                                                                              D
      the findings reached by the learned Single Judge in that regard.”
       7.1. However, thereafter, the Division Bench of the High Court
referred to a few passages in the 3-Judge Bench decision of this Court
in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others: (2016) 8 SCC 471, and
observed that the respondent had been acquitted in the said criminal
case prior to awarding of punishment in the disciplinary proceedings.         E
The Division Bench also observed that the matter was earlier remanded
to the Appellate Authority for re-consideration in light of the decision of
this Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) but, the Appellate
Authority again stuck to the punishment of removal and thereby, set at
naught the directions of the Court. On these considerations, the Division     F
Bench formed the view that the punishment of removal from service
was too harsh and thus, directed the present appellants to impose ‘any
lesser punishment as deemed just and proper’. The Division Bench
also issued consequential orders and directions as regards continuity of
service of the respondent. The relevant and concluding part of the order
                                                                              G
impugned reads as under: -
      “10. In the instant case, the petitioner-appellant was charge-
      sheeted along with others for the offences punishable under
      Sections 341/323/294/337/506 read with Section 34 of the Indian
      Penal Code. offences are petty offences said the petitioner-
                                                                              H
1060            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 2 S.C.R.


 A           appellant along the others stood acquitted with the specific
             observation of the learned trial court that the matter has been
             compromised between the parties, which was the specific pica of
             the petitioner-appellant that he had no knowledge about the
             pendency of case since the matter was compromised at the village.
             It may also be mentioned here that when the petitioner was first
 B
             awarded with the punishment of removal from service, he had
             approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 14945 of 2009 and this
             Court had set aside the punishment directing the appellate authority
             to reconsider the matter in the light of the judgment rendered by
             the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra).
 C           But the appellate authority again stuck to the punishment of
             removal thereby setting the direction of this Court at naught.
             Keeping in view the discussed facts and circumstances we are of
             the considered opinion that the punishment of removal from service
             as has been imposed against the petitioner-appellant was too harsh
             calling for interference by this Court in exercise of power under
 D           Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
             11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Only the punishment
             of removal from service as has been awarded against the
             petitioner-appellant is set aside and the opposite parties-
             respondents are directed to impose any lesser punishment as
 E           deemed just and proper. The petitioner-appellant shall be deemed
             to be continuing in service notionally from the date he was removed
             from service and shall be considered for the purpose of all
             consequential service benefits subject to any lesser punishment,
             if any, to be awarded by the competent authority-opposite parties-
 F           respondents.
                   However, the petitioner-appellant shall not be entitled to
             any pecuniary benefit for the period he was out of service.
                      The writ appeal is disposal of accordingly. No order as to
             cost.”
 G
              8. Assailing the order aforesaid, it has been strenuously argued by
       Ms. Nidhi Khanna, learned counsel for the appellant that, furnishing of
       false information and suppression of any relevant fact in the verification
       roll could only be viewed disfavourably and a person like the respondent,
       with the admitted position of suppression of material fact about pendency
 H     of the criminal case against him, could not have been ordered to be
       UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. DILIP KUMAR MALLICK                            1061
                 [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

taken back in service; and the punishment of removal from service in           A
this matter called for no interference. Learned counsel has particularly
referred to and relied upon the 3-Judge Bench decision of this Court in
the case of Avtar Singh (supra).
       9. Per contra, it is submitted by Mr. Piyush Kumar Roy, learned
counsel for the respondent that the respondent had been serving the            B
appellants without any cause of complaint since after his appointment in
the year 2009. It is submitted with reference to the judgment and order
dated 01.05.2008, as passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Kendrapara in Trial No. 33 of 2002 pertaining to GR Case No. 613 of
2001, that the respondent was honourably acquitted in the said case
pertaining to the offences of petty nature where more than 50 persons          C
of the village were parties and it had not been a matter of criminality of
conduct of the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent has
strenuously argued that the respondent had not been guilty of supplying
any false information; and in such a case of trivial nature, where the
respondent was ultimately acquitted honourably, the punishment of              D
removal from service would be too harsh and in the totality of the
circumstances, the Division Bench has rightly interfered to the limited
extent of requiring the authorities to re-consider the matter on the quantum
of punishment.
       9.1. With reference to the decision in Avtar Singh (supra) and          E
particularly to the summation in paragraph 38.4 and its sub-paragraphs,
the learned counsel would submit that this being a matter of trivial nature,
where the respondent had been honourably acquitted, the employer in
its discretion could ignore such alleged suppression of facts, which did
not carry the element of any ill-intent on the part of the respondent.
Learned counsel has also made a fervent plea for leniency, particularly        F
with reference to the facts that the respondent comes from a humble
background and has a family to support.
        10. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions
and having examined the material placed on record, we find it difficult to
endorse the approach and views of the Division Bench of the High Court         G
in this matter.
        11. The fact that the respondent was guilty of suppressing material
fact is not of any doubt or dispute. He had indeed left the relevant columns
in the verification roll blank; and thereby, had been wanting in
forthrightness while filling up the verification roll for employment with      H
1062             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2022] 2 S.C.R.


 A     the appellant. Admittedly, at the time of filling up the verification roll, the
       criminal case was pending. The respondent cannot feign ignorance about
       the said case because he indeed surrendered before the Trial Court and
       was granted bail. That being the position, the findings whereby he is held
       guilty of misconduct of suppression/concealment of material information,
       cannot be faulted at. In fact, such findings of the Disciplinary Authority
 B
       and the Appellate Authority have been affirmed by the learned Single
       Judge as also by the Division Bench in the order impugned. The question,
       then, is as to whether the Division Bench was justified in interfering with
       the quantum of punishment? In our view, the answer could only be in the
       negative.
 C
             12. As regards the effect of suppression of facts, the 3-Judge
       Bench of this Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), has stated the
       principles in no uncertain terms thus: -
              “32. No doubt about it that once verification form requires certain
 D            information to be furnished, declarant is duty-bound to furnish it
              correctly and any suppression of material facts or submitting false
              information, may by itself lead to termination of his services or
              cancellation of candidature in an appropriate case. However, in a
              criminal case incumbent has not been acquitted and case is pending
              trial, employer may well be justified in not appointing such an
 E            incumbent or in terminating the services as conviction ultimately
              may render him unsuitable for job and employer is not supposed
              to wait till outcome of criminal case. In such a case non-disclosure
              or submitting false information would assume significance and
              that by itself may be ground for employer to cancel candidature
 F            or to terminate services.”
              12.1. Of course, in Avtar Singh, various eventualities and the
       applicable principles have been summarised in paragraph 38 and sub-
       paragraph thereof. We may reproduce the relevant parts, as occurring
       in paragraphs 38.1 to 38.4.3, as under: -
 G
                    “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.
 H
       UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. DILIP KUMAR MALLICK                          1063
                 [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

            38.2 While passing order of termination of services or           A
      cancellation or 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,      B
      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 filing of the application/verification
      form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of        C
      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 post in question, the employer may, in its         D
      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 employees.
                                                                             E
             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.”           F

       13. Thus, it remains beyond the pale of doubt that the cases of
non-disclosure of material information and of submitting false information
have been treated as being of equal gravity by this Court and it is laid
down in no uncertain terms that non-disclosure by itself may be a ground
for an employer to cancel the candidature or to terminate services. Even     G
in the summation above-quoted, this Court has emphasized that
information given to the employer by a candidate as to criminal case
including the factors of arrest or pendency of the case, whether before
or after entering into service, must be true and there should be no
suppression or false mention of the required information.                    H
1064              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 2 S.C.R.


 A            14. In case of suppression, when the facts later come to the
       knowledge of employer, different courses of action may be adopted by
       the employer depending on the nature of fault as also the nature of
       default; and this Court has indicated that if the case is of trivial nature,
       like that of shouting slogans at a young age etc., the employer may
       ignore such suppression of fact or false information depending on the
 B
       factors as to whether the information, if disclosed, would have rendered
       incumbent unfit for the post in question.
             14.1. However, the aforesaid observations do not lead to the
       corollary that in a case of the present nature where a criminal case was
       indeed pending against the respondent and the facts were altogether
 C     omitted from being mentioned, the employer would be obliged to ignore
       such defaults and shortcomings. On the contrary, as indicated above, a
       non-disclosure of material information itself could be a ground for
       cancellation of employment or termination of services.
              15. We have also taken note of the fact that the decision of the
 D     so-called honourable acquittal was rendered by the Trial Court as late as
       on 01.05.2008. This leads to the position that the respondent, who entered
       the employment in CRPF in the year 2003 without disclosing the fact of
       pendency of criminal case against him, had continued to remain as a
       pending-trial accused person without the knowledge of the department,
 E     until the facts were noticed and he was subjected to departmental
       proceedings.
              16. In the given set of facts and circumstances, where suppression
       of relevant information is not a matter of dispute, there cannot be any
       legal basis for the Court to interfere in the manner that the employer be
 F     directed to impose ‘any lesser punishment’, as directed by the Division
       Bench of the High Court. The submissions seeking to evoke sympathy
       and calling for leniency cannot lead to any relief in favour of the
       respondent.
             17. Accordingly, and in view of the above, this appeal succeeds
 G     and is allowed; the questioned part of the impugned order dated
       25.03.2019, i.e., paragraph 11 where the Division Bench interfered with
       the quantum of punishment, is set aside. The writ petition filed by the
       respondent shall stand dismissed without any order as to costs.


 H     Devika Gujral                                                 Appeal allowed.