Facts
The appellant was appointed as Technician (Process) by FACT on consolidated pay. His attestation form stated that no criminal case was pending against him. During antecedent verification, an NCR under Ss.323 and 504 IPC registered in 2019 was discovered. The appellant maintained that he had no knowledge of it, had never been summoned, arrested or called to the police station, and relied on police certificates supporting his claim.
The NCR was subsequently investigated and the appellant’s name was deleted for want of evidence. Nevertheless, his services were terminated for allegedly furnishing false information. The High Court declined interference.
Issues Framed
Whether termination for alleged suppression of criminal antecedents was legally sustainable when the employee claimed lack of knowledge of the NCR and the employer had not independently assessed the nature and impact of the antecedent on his suitability.
Court’s Reasoning
(a) Applicable test. Relying on Avtar Singh v. Union of India, the Court held that termination cannot follow mechanically from non-disclosure. The employer must consider the circumstances, nature of the offence, nature of employment, outcome of the criminal case and relevant rules.
(b) Two-pronged enquiry. The enquiry has two stages. First, whether there was actual suppression or false information, having regard to the employee’s knowledge at the relevant time. Second, whether, considering the nature of the offence, suppression, post, duties and outcome of the criminal proceedings, termination was warranted. Both enquiries are necessary for a sustainable termination order — Para 24.
(c) Knowledge is essential. The Court held that “knowledge of a fact is a necessary pre-requisite for its non-disclosure.” The appellant’s lack of knowledge was supported by documentary evidence: he had never been summoned, arrested or questioned; a 2020 police certificate disclosed no adverse entry; and a subsequent certificate confirmed deletion of his name after investigation.
(d) Employer’s failure to apply its mind. The authorities treated the existence of the NCR as automatically rendering the appellant unsuitable. They did not examine the specific nature of the offence, its relevance to the post, or the subsequent deletion of his name. The termination therefore failed both limbs of the required enquiry.
Held
The termination was illegal and without application of mind. The Court set it aside and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits, restricting back wages to 50%, payable within eight weeks, failing which interest at 6% per annum would apply.
Conclusion
A candidate cannot be held guilty of suppression of a criminal antecedent unknown to him, and termination on that ground requires both proof of actual suppression and a reasoned assessment of whether the antecedent warrants termination in the circumstances of the case.
Relevant Para
Para 24
To summarise, 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. It is only where both these stages of enquiries are undertaken and not otherwise, that an order of termination on this ground can be said to be sustainable in law.
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 829
Decided on: 11 August 2026
Case Title: Shatrughn Yadav v. The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (F.A.C.T.) & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Sanjay Karol J.; Augustine George Masih J.