UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus DILIP KUMAR MALLICK
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 1056, Supreme Court of India, 2022
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1056
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 1056
1056
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
DILIP KUMAR MALLICK
(Civil Appeal No. 2754 of 2022)
(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
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
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’ –
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
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
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1057
of the High Court – The submissions seeking to evoke sympathy
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
(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
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.
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
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
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.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. DILIP KUMAR MALLICK
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1058
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
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.
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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1059
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 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 punishable under
Sections 341/323/294/337/506 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. offences are petty offences said the petitioner-
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. DILIP KUMAR MALLICK
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1060
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
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.”
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1061
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 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
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. DILIP KUMAR MALLICK
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1062
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
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
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 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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1063
38.2 While 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.
38.3 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 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.”
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.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. DILIP KUMAR MALLICK
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1064
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
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 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.
Devika Gujral
Appeal allowed.