Tisa Padhy
Introduction
In the recent Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited vs. Anil Kanwari judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held that an employee who had made false declarations or suppressed vital personal information affecting the job profile is not entitled to continue in service by taking the plea of it being a right. Rather it is upon the employer to decide the fate of the employment. This decision was well appreciated for striking a balance between an individual’s right to employment and fairness & justice. This article attempts to briefly analyse the same.
Facts of the case
The Appellants, Rajasthan Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, invited applications for the post of technical helper in October 2013. The Respondent, Anil Kanwariya, qualified for the post following a written test. As per the terms and conditions of appointment, the respondent was required to submit a character certification/verification report issued by the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District where he belongs to the appellant company. The respondent, during document verification, submitted a declaration that neither any criminal case was pending against him nor was he convicted by any criminal court previously. However, it is later found out that a case was filed against the respondent-employee for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 323 IPC in which a chargesheet was filed against the respondent- employee. Following this, the learned trial Court had convicted the respondent-employee vide judgment and order dated 5.8.2013, convicting him for the offences under Sections 341 and 323 IPC. After finding this out, the appellants released a show cause notice to the respondent and decided after hearing to terminate him from employment on grounds of malicious suppression of material facts. Aggrieved by the same, the responded filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court accepted the petition and set aside the impugned termination order. Appeal to the same is what had brought the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Judgement
The matter in the Supreme Court was heard by a division bench consisting of Justice M R Shah and A.S. Bopannah. The High Court while deciding on the matter had relied upon the judgement of Avtar Singh v. Union of India. However, the Supreme Court overturned the decision while relying upon various other precedents (Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav; Secretary, Department of Home Secretary, A.P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu; Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India; Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P.; Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal; and State of M.P. v. Abhijit Singh Pawar) The court observed that where the employee at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts creates a valid apprehension of untrustworthiness in the minds of the employer who can feel that such an employee cannot be continued in service as he cannot be relied upon even in future. In such a case the employer cannot be forced to continue such employment. The discretion of whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always remains with the employer.
Further, on the contention raised by the respondent, the Court said that subsequently getting the benefit of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 shall not be helpful to the respondent in as much as the question is about filing a false declaration since the declaration was filed much earlier than the order passed by the sessions court granting benefit of the section. Hence, even in case of subsequent acquittal, the employee once made a false declaration and/or suppressed the material fact of a pending criminal case shall not be entitled to an appointment as a matter of right.
The court also observed that this issue may be considered from the employer’s point of view. The question is not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently acquitted or not. The question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of the employment, i.e., while applying for a post made a false declaration not disclosing and suppressing the material fact of having been involved in a criminal case. There is a possibility that if the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him. Thus, in the present case the bigger question lies in trust. Therefore, if at all the employer feels that an employee cannot be continued in service because of lack of trust in the employee; the employer cannot be forced to continue such employment. Therefore, such an employee cannot claim the appointment and/or continue to be in service as a matter of right guaranteed to him.
Analysis and Conclusion
By the decision of the Supreme Court it can clearly be seen that any employee who has derived the status of being an employee by means of fraudulently not disclosing material information that might have affected the employment, cannot claim to continue in the employment by means of it being a right. In such cases the interest of the employer needs to be kept in mind as he is the one being defrauded. There is a possibility that the employer would not have given the employment had it been for the misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. Making continuation of the employment would be unnecessarily harsh and unjust for the employer. Furthermore, the principle of unjust enrichment also comes into the picture, wherein one person enjoys the benefits at the cost of another’s loss. In this case the employee might enjoy the benefit of employment but at the cost of loss of the employer’s right to make decisions regarding whom to employ, even though he has got that position by committing fraud or misrepresentation. Hence, it is only fair that the discretion regarding the same lies with the employer. Thus this is a remarkable decision that would help in resolving several employer-employee disputes of this nature in the future.
CLL
Leave a Reply