Read Time: 06 minutes

Relying on the view taken in Avatar Singh v Union of India & Ors, wherein a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that in the event of any suppression or on submitting false information, it is always open for the employer to cancel the candidature or terminate service, the top court recently upheld the termination of a person who after he deserted the Army in 1992, was declared as an absconder.

The Supreme Court in Avatar Singh had held:

“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.”

In the instant appeal filed by one Rajesh Kumar who was selected and appointed as Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police Service, while undergoing A, B, C & D Course in South-west District, a complaint was receive stating that Kumar was a deserter from the Army.

On receipt of such complaint, respondents got the information confirmed. It was further contended by the respondents that in the attestation form which was duly filled by the appellant in his own handwriting at the time of entry into service, in column No. 10, he had not disclosed about his earlier employment in Army and suppressed the said information

Accordingly, during the probation period, respondents terminated the service of the appellant by passing an order in exercise of power under proviso to sub-rule (i) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules of 1965. 

Perusing the said order, a bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy found the termination simplicitor without any allegation against the appellant.

"During the period of probation, it is always open to the employer to verify the antecedents of a temporary appointee, in case any information is received by way of complaint or otherwise. Merely because the antecedents were verified by addressing a letter to the SHO/ Inderpuri, it cannot be said that respondents have conducted regular inquiry, so as to give an opportunity to the appellant. In absence of any allegation in the impugned order, the order of termination dated 14.08.1996 cannot be said to be an order casting stigma on the appellant. Before the declaration of probation, on the ground that the appellant has not disclosed particulars of earlier employment, it is always open for the respondents to terminate his temporary service without issuing any notice.", noted the bench.

With this view, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: Rajesh Kumar v Union of India Through Chief of Army Staff and Ors