Non-Disclosure of Unknown Criminal Antecedents Not Suppression: SC

Knowledge of a criminal antecedent is a mandatory pre-requisite for holding an employee guilty of non-disclosure, making mechanical service terminations illegal when a candidate had no prior awareness of pending proceedings.

A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside a High Court judgment that upheld the termination of an appointee for non-disclosure of a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) in his attestation form. Reaffirming that termination cannot be an automatic outcome of undisclosed antecedents, the apex court ordered the employee's immediate reinstatement with 50% backwages.

Two-Pronged Test for Termination on Antecedent Non-Disclosure

The Supreme Court emphasized that termination from service on grounds of suppressing criminal antecedents cannot be executed mechanically. In applying the principles laid down in Avtar Singh v Union of India ( "(2016) 8 SCC 471": 2016 CaseBase(SC) 405), the Bench outlined a structured two-pronged inquiry that every employer must undertake before ordering discharge.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The enquiry to be undertaken by the employer, before proceeding to terminate the services of an employee on the ground of suppression of information regarding criminal antecedents, is essentially two-pronged. The first is one of fact: whether there has, in truth, been any suppression or furnishing of false information by the candidate, having regard to the extent of his knowledge at the relevant time and the circumstances in which the declaration came to be made. The second prong of enquiry requires the authorities to apply their mind to the specific facts and circumstances of the case including the type of the suppression, the nature of allegations, role and gravity of the offence, the nature of the post and the duties attached to it and wherever relevant the effect thereof, and the eventual outcome of the criminal proceedings, if concluded, in order to arrive at a considered conclusion as to whether the continuation of the employee in service would not be feasible and the only option available is termination from service."

Addressing the core rationale of non-disclosure, the Court added: "Needless to say, knowledge of a fact is a necessary pre-requisite for its non-disclosure. The very concept of suppression presupposes an awareness of that which is suppressed; one cannot be said to have withheld or concealed something of which one had no knowledge in the first place. It would be both illogical and unjust to hold a candidate liable for suppression of information that was never within his knowledge to begin with."

The Court has the following directions:

"we set aside the order of termination of the appellant and direct reinstatement in service forthwith with all consequential benefits, except for backwages which will be restricted to 50% to be paid within a period of eight weeks from today failing which interest @6% per annum will be payable from the date the amount became due till disbursal."

Background

The dispute arose when the appellant was appointed as Technician (Process) at The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. on May 5, 2021. In his attestation form, he stated that no criminal cases were pending against him. Subsequently, police verification revealed an NCR registered on April 3, 2019, under Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC.

Following a show-cause notice, the appellant explained that he was completely unaware of the NCR, having received no summons or police notices, and was never arrested. He produced a police character certificate issued after the NCR date showing no adverse records, followed by a final police report confirming the deletion of his name due to lack of evidence. Unconvinced, the employer terminated his service on August 5, 2023.

The appellant challenged the termination in the High Court of Kerala, but both the Single Judge and the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition on grounds that disputed facts were involved and remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ought to have been pursued. Setting aside these rulings, the Supreme Court relied on precedents including Ravindra Kumar v State of UP ( "(2024) INSC 131": 2022 CaseBase(ALL) 251) and Umesh Chandra Yadav v Inspector General and Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Northern Railway, New Delhi and others to affirm that relief must be granted where non-disclosure stems from bona fide ignorance rather than deliberate suppression.

Case Details:
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (SLP (Civil) No. 7197 of 2026)
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 829
Case Title: Shatrughn Yadav v. The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (F.A.C.T.) and Others

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 766