The Supreme Court recently upheld the decision of the Delhi Government to dismiss a government teacher from service for suppressing the information about a criminal case against him while applying for the job.

"In the present case, the respondent is responsible for shaping career of young students. What kind of message he will be giving to the students by his conduct based on untruthfulness?", a bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramaniam observed.
"...an employee desirous of holding civil post has to act with utmost good faith and truthfulness. Truthfulness cannot be made causality by an aspirant much more for a candidate aspiring to be a teacher", the Court added further.

"This Court has held that giving of a wrong information disentitles the candidate for appointment", the Court said referring to precedents.

Factual Background

In the attestation form submitted while joining, the candidate had answered in the negative to the question "have you ever been prosecuted?". Almost seven years after joining service, the authorities discovered that he had faced prosecution in a criminal case relating to offences under Section 499/93, 147, 332, 353, 427 and 149 IPC, in which chargesheet was filed five years before he had joined service.

On explanation being sought from the teacher,  he replied that he had forgotten about the case after his acquittal and the omission happened during oversight. He was dismissed from service after enquiry.

He challenged the dismissal before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which refused to interfere. However, the Delhi High Court granted him relief by setting aside the dismissal. Challenging the High Court decision, the Delhi Government approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's analysis

Opposing the Government's appeal, the respondent placed reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others 2016(8) SCC 471 which held that suppression of information about criminal case by a candidate can be condoned or ignored in certain situations, especially when the candidate has been acquitted in the case and that the case is of trivial nature which does not make the candidate unsuitable for the job.