Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the termination of the appellant, who was appointed as a Technician (Process) on consolidated pay for two years by the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (F.A.C.T.). At the time of joining, he submitted an attestation form declaring that no criminal case was pending against him. Subsequently, verification revealed a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered against him on 03.04.2019. A show cause notice was issued alleging furnishing of false information. The appellant replied that he had acted bona fide and was unaware of the NCR as he had never received any summons or been arrested. He enclosed a police certificate dated 09.07.2020 stating there was no entry against him, and later a final report showing his name had been deleted from the accused array due to lack of evidence. Despite this, the employer terminated his services on 05.08.2023. The appellant challenged the termination before the High Court of Kerala. A Single Judge declined to interfere, holding that the claim of unawareness involved a disputed question of fact. A Division Bench upheld this decision. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, the respondents argued that the suppression of the NCR rendered the appellant unfit, that he must have had knowledge since his parents were also charged, and that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellant contended that his declaration was bona fide, supported by police certificates, and that the High Court erred in refusing jurisdiction. The Supreme Court first addressed the maintainability objection, holding that the existence of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar and the writ petition was maintainable. On merits, the Court examined the legal position on suppression of criminal antecedents, extensively quoting the principles laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India. It emphasized that termination is not an automatic consequence and the employer must apply its mind to factors such as the nature of suppression, the candidate’s knowledge, the outcome of the criminal case, and other circumstances. The Court noted that the approach must not be mechanical. The judgment text provided ends before a final conclusion, and therefore the ultimate decision of the Court is not available in the extracted portion.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Alternative Remedy - Writ Jurisdiction - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Availability of alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly where the challenge is to the legality of the termination order itself. The mere existence of such a remedy does not preclude the High Court from entertaining a writ petition. Held that the appellant's writ petition was maintainable despite the objection raised by the respondents (Paras 18-19). B) Employment Law - Suppression of Criminal Antecedents - Termination - Service Law - Principles summarised in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471 require the employer to consider each case on its own merits; termination cannot be an automatic consequence of the existence of criminal antecedents. The employer must take into account factors such as whether the non-disclosure was deliberate, the candidate’s knowledge of the case, the nature of the offence, the outcome of the criminal proceedings, the nature of employment, and any special circumstances. A mechanical order of termination without application of mind is impermissible. The court observed that termination orders must be based on a mindful consideration of these factors (Paras 20-23)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the appellant's services was legally justified given his claim of lack of knowledge of the NCR and the subsequent deletion of his name from the accused array; and whether the High Court should have entertained the writ petition despite the availability of an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Law Points
- Termination for suppression of criminal antecedents is not automatic
- employer must consider the nature of suppression
- knowledge of candidate
- outcome of criminal case
- nature of employment and offence
- and special circumstances
- deliberate suppression is essential
- mechanical termination without application of mind is impermissible
- existence of alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where legality of termination is challenged
