The Supreme Court has ruled that an employee cannot be treated as having suppressed criminal antecedents when the existence of the criminal case was not within his knowledge at the time of making the declaration.
The bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sanjay Karol emphasised that knowledge of the fact is a necessary prerequisite for holding a candidate guilty of suppression or furnishing false information.
The appellant/assessee was appointed as a Technician (Process) by Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. on May 5, 2021, on consolidated pay for an initial period of two years. At the time of joining, he submitted an attestation form declaring that no criminal case was pending against him.
Buy Now: 50+ Supreme Court Judgments – July 2026
Approximately six months after his appointment, the employer sought verification of his criminal antecedents from the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate, by communication dated March 22, 2022, informed the employer that a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) dated April 3, 2019, had been registered against the appellant under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
Based on this information, the employer issued a show cause notice on April 30, 2022, alleging that the appellant had furnished false information and calling upon him to explain why his services should not be terminated.
The appellant denied deliberately suppressing any information. His consistent case was that he had never been aware of the NCR when he filled out the verification form.
He pointed out that he had neither received any summons nor been arrested in connection with the NCR. According to him, he had therefore had no reason to know that such a report had been registered against him.
To substantiate his claim, the appellant produced a certificate dated July 9, 2020, issued by the Superintendent of Police, District Maharajganj. The certificate stated that there was no adverse entry against him based on information received from the concerned police station, the local intelligence unit and the District Crime Records Bureau.
He subsequently submitted another representation on June 6, 2023, enclosing the police final report. The report recorded that no evidence had been found against him and that his name had been deleted from the array of accused persons.
Despite his explanation and the documents produced, the employer terminated his appointment on August 5, 2023.
The appellant challenged the termination before the Kerala High Court. The Single Judge declined to interfere, holding that his claim of ignorance of the NCR involved a disputed question of fact.
The Division Bench subsequently agreed with the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal, leading the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant relied upon the principles laid down in Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. and Avtar Singh v. Union of India, arguing that mere non-disclosure cannot automatically justify termination. What has to be established is deliberate suppression or furnishing of false information.
The respondents argued that the appellant should have pursued the remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the disputed factual issues made the matter unsuitable for adjudication under writ jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court rejected this objection.
The Court held that the existence of an alternative remedy does not constitute an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly when the legality of the termination order itself is under challenge.
Thus, the Court proceeded to examine whether the termination was legally sustainable.
The Supreme Court relied extensively upon the three-Judge Bench ruling in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, which lays down the principles governing disclosure of criminal antecedents in employment verification forms.
The Court noted that the information supplied by a candidate regarding conviction, acquittal, arrest or pendency of a criminal case must ordinarily be truthful. However, while deciding whether to terminate an employee or cancel candidature, the employer must also consider the special circumstances of the individual case and applicable rules and instructions.
The judgment further recognises that the consequences of suppression can vary depending upon the nature of the criminal case, its outcome, the seriousness of the offence and the nature of the employment.
Importantly, the Supreme Court highlighted the principle that knowledge of the fact must be attributable to the candidate before he can be held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi.
Building upon these principles, the Court formulated a two-pronged enquiry.
The employer must first determine whether the candidate actually suppressed information or furnished false information, taking into account the candidate’s knowledge at the relevant time and the circumstances in which the declaration was made.
Even if suppression is established, the authority must independently consider the nature of the suppression, the allegations, the role of the employee, the gravity of the offence, the nature of the post and duties, and the eventual outcome of the criminal proceedings.
Only after both stages are properly examined can termination on the ground of suppression be legally sustained.
A significant observation of the Supreme Court was that a person cannot be accused of concealing information that he did not know in the first place.
The Court found that the appellant had consistently maintained that he was unaware of the NCR. His claim was supported by documentary evidence.
The Court specifically considered the police certificate dated July 9, 2020, which recorded that there were no adverse entries against him, despite the NCR having been lodged in 2019.
Another police certificate issued subsequently confirmed that although the appellant had initially been arrayed in the NCR, his name was later removed after investigation because no evidence was found against him. The certificate also recorded that he had neither been called to the police station nor arrested during the relevant period.
On this material, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had no reasonable means of knowing about the NCR.
The Court observed that “knowledge of a fact is a necessary pre-requisite for its non-disclosure.” It explained that suppression necessarily presupposes awareness of the fact being suppressed. Holding an individual responsible for concealing information that was never within his knowledge would be illogical and unjust.
The judgment, however, does not create a blanket defence for candidates who claim ignorance of criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court made it clear that the burden lies on the candidate to establish lack of knowledge. A mere assertion that the candidate was unaware of a criminal case would not be sufficient.
The Court cautioned that without this requirement, candidates could simply plead ignorance to circumvent the disclosure requirements contained in verification forms. In the present case, however, the Court found that the appellant’s claim of bona fide ignorance was supported by reliable documentary evidence.
The Supreme Court also found a separate defect in the decision-making process.
Even assuming that the criminal antecedent could have been considered, the authorities had failed to conduct the second stage of the enquiry—whether the alleged antecedent and its circumstances were serious enough to warrant termination.
The Court noted that the authorities proceeded on the assumption that the existence of the criminal antecedent automatically made the appellant ineligible for employment.
There were no specific findings concerning the nature of the alleged offence, its impact on the Technician (Process) post, or the significance of the fact that the appellant’s name had subsequently been removed from the array of accused persons.
The Supreme Court reiterated that termination for alleged suppression of criminal antecedents cannot be imposed mechanically.
Authorities must consider the form of suppression, outcome of the criminal case, nature of the employment, nature of the offence and other special circumstances. The employer must apply its mind to the individual facts before arriving at a decision.
The Court also referred to its earlier decisions in Ravindra Kumar and Umesh Chandra Yadav, which emphasise that suitability and proportionality must be assessed rather than treating an incorrect declaration as automatically warranting termination.
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court held that the termination in the present case was not permissible in law.
The Court found that the termination failed on both aspects of the required enquiry: first, the appellant’s lack of knowledge of the NCR stood established on the documentary record; and second, the authorities had failed to undertake the necessary assessment of whether the alleged antecedent justified termination.
The Court accordingly set aside the termination order and directed reinstatement forthwith with all consequential benefits.
However, the Court restricted the back wages to 50%. The amount was directed to be paid within eight weeks. In the event of failure to make payment within that period, interest at 6% per annum would become payable from the date the amount became due until disbursal.
Membership Required to Access Notification Details & Copy
To view the complete Notification Details and Download Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
