STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS. versus GOBINDA BEHERA
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 643, Supreme Court of India, 2020
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
643
STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS.
v.
GOBINDA BEHERA
(Civil Appeal No. 893 of 2020)
JANUARY 31, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Service Law – Respondent applied for appointment to the post
of Constable in Odisha State Police specifically stating in his
application that he was not involved in any criminal case –
Appointed – During verification, it was found that he was involved
in a case u/ss.294/323/324/326/336/337/427/379/506/34, IPC –
Respondent was discharged from service – Odisha Administrative
Tribunal rejected Original Application (OA) filed by the respondent
– Reversed by High Court – On appeal, held: Respondent was
seeking public employment in the State police service – His duties,
on appointment to the service, would be of a responsible character,
bearing intrinsically on the maintenance of law and order and with
consequences for personal liberty of citizens – To expect that an
applicant for such a position would be truthful in the disclosure of
information sought about the antecedents is a justifiable basis for
assessment of personality and character – Case against the
respondent cannot be regarded as being trivial in nature – Despite
being involved in the criminal case, the respondent suppressed these
facts – Criminal case was quashed in exercise of jurisdiction u/
s.482, CrPC on the basis of compromise between the parties much
after the order of discharge – Impugned order set aside – Order of
the Tribunal maintained – OA filed
by the respondent is dismissed –
Orissa Police Rules – r.673.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The respondent was seeking public employment
in the State police service. His duties, on appointment to the
service, would be of a responsible character, bearing intrinsically
on the maintenance of law and order and with consequences for
personal liberty of citizens. To expect that an applicant for such a
position would be truthful in the disclosure of information sought
about the antecedents is a justifiable basis for assessment of
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 643
643
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
644
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
personality and character. The employer can legitimately conclude
that a person who has suppressed material facts does not deserve
to be in its employment. In the present case, the case against the
respondent cannot be regarded as being trivial in nature. That
apart, it is evident that, despite being involved in the criminal
case, the respondent suppressed these facts from the authorities
while applying for the post of a Constable in the State Police. The
criminal case was quashed in exercise of the jurisdiction under
Section 482 of CrPC on the basis of a compromise between the
parties much after the order of discharge. Hence, the view which
has been taken by the High Court is palpably unsustainable. The
Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application. The impugned
judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. While
maintaining the order of the Tribunal, the OA filed by the
respondent shall stand dismissed. [Paras 7, 8][647-H; 648-A-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 893 of
2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.03.2018 of the High Court
of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P. (C) No. 21868 of 2015.
Shibashish Misra, S. Debabrata Reddy, Chandan Kumar Mandal,
Advs. for the Appellants.
Azim H. Laskar, Sachin Das, Adtiya Kumar Archiya, Ms. Sampa
Sengupta Ray, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal arises from a judgment and order of a Division
Bench of the High Court of Orissa dated 29 March 2018.
4. The respondent applied for appointment to the post of a
Constable in the Odisha State Police in the 6th IR Batallion, Khurda on
29 October 2011. In response to a query, the respondent specifically
stated in his application that he was not involved in any criminal case.
He was appointed on 14 December 2011. A verification roll was provided
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
645
to him, which was to be filled up in terms of Rule 673 of the Orissa
Police Rules. On 22 May 2012, the Superintendent of Police, Puri informed
the Commandant that during the course of the verification of the character
and antecedents of the respondent, it was found that he was involved in
Balanga PS Case No 46 of 2009 under Sections 294/323/324/326/336/
337/427/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code 18601. On 6 July 2012, the
respondent was called upon to explain why he had submitted a false
statement in the verification roll and in the application for appointment to
the post of Constable. The respondent was discharged from service on
26 July 2012, upon which he filed a proceeding before the Odisha
Administrative Tribunal2. The Tribunal rejected the Original Application3
on the ground that the respondent had furnished a false declaration.
This decision of the Tribunal was reversed by the High Court, by its
impugned judgment. The High Court did so on the basis of a judgment of
this Court in Avtar Singh v Union of India4 (Avtar Singh). The High
Court held that the Tribunal had not taken note of the fact that the criminal
proceeding had already been quashed and that the suppression in the
circumstances was of a technical and trivial nature. The authorities were
directed to consider the case of the respondent for reinstatement in his
former post and to grant consequential service and financial benefits.
5. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the
appellant and the respondent, the factual position, which has emerged
before the Court, is that the First Information Report in the criminal case
was lodged on 16 June 2009. The respondent surrendered before the
JMFC on 3 August 2009 and was released on bail in view of an order
dated 28 July 2009 which had been passed by the High Court in Bail
Application 10246 of 2009. The respondent applied for the post of a
Constable thereafter on 29 October 2011 and was appointed on 14
December 2011. The respondent moved the High Court under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19735 for quashing the criminal
proceedings. The High Court, by its order dated 22 November 2013,
quashed the criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise between
the parties. This was after the order of discharge from service on 26
July 2012.
1 “IPC”
2 “Tribunal”
3 “OA”
4  (2016) 8 SCC 471
5  ‘‘CrPC’’
STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS. v. GOBINDA BEHERA
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
646
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
6. The position in law has been considered by this Court in a
decision of a three-Judge Bench in Avtar Singh. The summary of the
conclusions is contained in the following extract:
“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 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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
647
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.
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.”
7. The respondent was seeking public employment in the State
police service. His duties, on appointment to the service, would be of a
STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS. v. GOBINDA BEHERA
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
648
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
responsible character, bearing intrinsically on the maintenance of law
and order and with consequences for personal liberty of citizens. To
expect that an applicant for such a position would be truthful in the
disclosure of information sought about the antecedents is a justifiable
basis for assessment of personality and character. The employer can
legitimately conclude that a person who has suppressed material facts
does not deserve to be in its employment.
8. In the present case, the case against the respondent cannot be
regarded as being trivial in nature. That apart, it is evident that, despite
being involved in the criminal case, the respondent suppressed these
facts from the authorities while applying for the post of a Constable in
the State Police. The criminal case was quashed in exercise of the
jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC on the basis of a compromise
between the parties much after the order of discharge. Hence, the view
which has been taken by the High Court is palpably unsustainable. The
Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application.
9. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned
judgment and order of the High Court dated 29 March 2018. While
maintaining the order of the Tribunal, we order and direct that the OA
filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
Divya Pandey
Appeal allowed.