1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2754 OF 2022

(Arising Out of SLP (C) NO. 26402 OF 2019)

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ………APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

DILIP KUMAR MALLICK ………RESPONDENT(S)

ORDER

DINESH MAHESHWARI,J.

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 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 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.

2

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 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 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 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 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.

3

6. The plea taken by the present respondent before the

learned Single Judge in this writ petition was that, he had not

suppressed any 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 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.

6.1.The learned Single Judge did not agree with the

contentions 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 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

4

the basic findings of the learned Single Judge as regards

guilt/delinquency of the appellant and affirmed the conclusion

in that 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 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. 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 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

impugned reads as under: -

“10.In the instant case, the petitioner-appellant

was charge-sheeted along with others for the offences

5

punishable under Sections 341/323/294/337/506 read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. offences

are petty offences said the petitioner-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 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). 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 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 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-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.”

6

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 of the criminal case against him, could not have been

ordered to be taken back in service; and the punishment of

removal from service in 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 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 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 removal from service

7

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

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 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 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 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

8

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 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.

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 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 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 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

9

under: -

“ 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.

38.2While passing order of termination of

services or cancellation or candidature for giving

false information, the employer may take notice of

special circumstances of the case, if any, while

giving such information.

38.3The employer shall take into consideration

the government orders/instructions/rules,

applicable to the employee, at the time of taking

the decision.

38.4In 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 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 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.

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.”

10

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 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.

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 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 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

11

services.

15. We have also taken note of the fact that the decision of

the 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, 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 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

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.

…………………………………………………….J

(DINESH MAHESHWARI)

………………………………….J

(M.M.SUNDRESH)

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 5, 2022.

12

ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.14 SECTION XI-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26402/2019

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-03-2019

in WA No. 223/2018 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack)

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

DILLIP KUMAR MALLICK Respondent(s)

(IA No. 11524/2022 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION)

Date : 05-04-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH

For Petitioner(s) Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR

Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Adv.

Mr. G. S. Makkar, Adv.

Ms. Nidhi Khanna, Adv.

Mr. A. K. Sharma, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Pijush K. Roy, Adv.

Mrs. Kakali Roy, Adv.

Ms. Ankita Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Rajan K. Chourasia, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal succeeds and is allowed in terms of the Signed

Reportable Order.

All pending applications stand disposed of.

(SHRADDHA MISHRA) (RANJANA SHAILEY)

SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)

(Signed Reportable Order is placed on the file)