Supreme Court Orders Reinstatement of Employee Terminated Over Non-Disclosure of Criminal Case, Apex Court emphasizes need for thorough enquiry before termination on grounds of alleged suppression of criminal antecedents.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has directed the reinstatement of Shatrughn Yadav, an employee of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (F.A.C.T.), who had been terminated for allegedly failing to disclose a non-cognizable report (NCR) against him at the time of his appointment. The court held that termination of employment on the grounds of suppression of criminal antecedents is not automatic and necessitates a thorough, two-pronged enquiry by the employer.
The judgment, delivered by Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, emphasized that an employer must first determine whether there was intentional suppression or false declaration by the candidate. Secondly, they must assess whether the criminal antecedent, or any suppression thereof, justifies termination, considering the nature of the offense and its impact on the employment position.
Yadav, appointed as a Technician (Process) in 2021, faced termination after a verification process revealed an NCR registered against him in 2019 under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. However, he maintained that he was unaware of the NCR, a claim supported by a police certificate and subsequent discharge due to lack of evidence.
The Supreme Court noted that Yadav consistently claimed bona fide ignorance of the NCR, substantiated by documentary evidence. It also criticized the employer for not conducting a detailed enquiry into the nature and impact of the alleged suppression, failing to appreciate the discharge of the appellant from the NCR.
Consequently, the court set aside the termination, directing Yadav's reinstatement with all consequential benefits, albeit restricting back wages to 50%. The judgment underscores the judiciary's stance that termination must not be a mechanical response to alleged non-disclosure but should be a well-considered decision based on the specific circumstances of each case.
Bottom Line:
Termination of employment on the ground of suppression of criminal antecedents is not automatic; the employer must conduct a two-pronged enquiry, considering both the knowledge of the candidate about the antecedents and the impact of such antecedents on the nature of employment.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Sections 323, 504
