NON-DISCLOSURE OF RELEVANT INFORMATION IS GROUND FOR TERMINATION OF SERVICE - SC

The Top Court repeated that non-disclosure of material information about oneself is a ground for termination of employment.

FACTS

Mr. Dilip Mallick was appointed under the Central Reserve Police Force ('CRPF') in 2003 in Bhubaneshwar. An inquiry was initiated by the department against Mallick alleging that he suppressed the fact that he was involved in a criminal case and criminal case pending before some competent court along with the charge sheet. The Disciplinary Authority removed Mallick as punishment. Mallick approached the Orissa High Court challenging the order, the HC partly allowed the writ and directed CRPF to impose lesser punishment as deemed fit and proper. The HC affirmed the findings of the Disciplinary Authority that Mallick was guilty of misconduct and concealment of facts.

ISSUE

The appellant raised the issue before the HC, whether the HC was justified in interfering with the punishment awarded to the appellant?

HELD

The SC referred to Avtar Singh V Union of India, wherein, the following observations were made:

"It remains clear that non-disclosure of material information and submission of false information has been treated equally and non-disclosure of information by itself may be a ground for termination of services." "In case of suppression of facts, the employer may adopt different courses of action depending upon the nature of the fault. If the cases are trivial, like shouting slogans, etc the employer may ignore such concealment of fact or false information, as such false information, if disclosed, would render the employee unfit for the post." 

The SC bench observed that Mallick had joined the CRPF service in 2003 without disclosing the facts of the criminal case and pending trial of the criminal case against him, and continued to remain as a pending trial accused person without the knowledge of CRPF until the facts were disclosed.

The SC allowed the appeal by stating "where concealment of pertinent information is not a matter of dispute, the court cannot interfere and direct the employer to impose a lesser punishment."