The employer terminated services on non-disclosure of pending criminal case.
B. Chinnam Naidu, (2005) 2 SCC 746 observed, when a candidate suppresses material information and/or gives false information, he cannot claim any right for appointment or continuance in service. Daya Shankar Yadav, (2010) 14 SCC 103 observed, purpose of seeking information with respect to antecedents is to ascertain character and assess suitability. Jainendra Singh, (2012) 8 SCC 748 summarized principles to be considered in a case where appointment is obtained by misrepresentation and/or suppression of facts.
Devendra Kumar, (2013) 9 SCC 363 observed, pendency of a criminal case/proceeding is different from suppressing information of such pendency. The case pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude but suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral turpitude. It is further observed, information sought if not disclosed as required, would definitely amount to suppression of material information and service becomes liable to be terminated even if there had been no further trial or person concerned stood acquitted/discharged.
“Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal.” [Chief Justice Edward Coke of England]
– Hon’ble Justice M.R. Shah, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited v. Anil Kanwariya, [Civil Appeal Nos. 5473-5744 of 2021].
Also see, State of Rajasthan v. Chetan Jeff, [Civil Appeal No. 3116 of 2022] decided on 11.05.2022.