INTRODUCTION:

This has been observed in the case of RAJESH KUMAR Appellant(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF & ORS. Respondent(s). These appeals have been filed against the judgments and orders dated 20th August 2008 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1549 of 1997 and order dated 29th September 2008 passed in Review Petition No. 341 of 2008 in W.P. (Civil) No. 1549 of 2008 passed in Review Petition No. 341 of 2008 in W.P. (Civil) No. 1549 of 2008 by the High Court of Delhi. . In 1994, the plaintiff was selected and became a deputy inspector at the Delhi Police Station. His service was terminated because he was a deserter from the army. He did not disclose anything about his previous military employment and was found to have suppressed this information.

WAS THE APPELLANT THE EMPLOYER OUGHT TO HAVE CONDUCTED INQUIRY
BY GIVING OPPORTUNITIES BEFORE HIS TERMINATION?

The bench comprising Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy noted that the order that it is only a termination simpliciter without any allegation against the appellant. The court observed that “During the period of probation, it is always open to the employer to verify the antecedents of a temporary appointee, n case any information is received by way of complaint or otherwise. Merely because the antecedents were verified by addressing a letter to the SHO/ Inderpuri, it cannot be said that respondents have conducted a regular inquiry, to allow the appellant” Though the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. V. SANDEEP KUMAR1, given the subsequent judgment of this Court in the case of AVATAR SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.2, a Three-Judge Bench of this Court has held that in the event of any suppression or on submitting false information, it is always open for the employer to cancel the candidature or terminate service. Para 32 of the said judgment reads as under:- “32. No doubt about it that once verification form requires certain information to be furnished, the declarant is duty-bound to furnish it correctly and any suppression of material facts or submitting false information, may by itself lead to termination of his services or cancellation of candidature in an appropriate case. However, in a criminal case incumbent has not been acquitted and the case is pending trial, the employer may well be justified in not appointing such an incumbent or in terminating the services as conviction ultimately may render him unsuitable for the job, an employer is not supposed to wait till the outcome of the criminal case. In such a case non- disclosure or submitting false information would assume significance and that by itself may be ground for the employer to cancel candidature or to terminate services.”

CONCLUSION:

The court has observed a similar case and in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of AVATAR SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.2, we do not find any merit in this appeal, to interfere with the impugned order, passed by the High Court. Appeals are dismissed, with no order as to costs.