Filing false Declaration may end up in loosing Job

Filing false declaration may lead to dismissal

An employee, who made a false declaration and/or suppressed the material fact of his involvement in a criminal case, shall not be entitled to an appointment or to continue in service as a matter of right, says the Supreme Court.

In Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited v Anil Kanwariya ( LL 2021 SC 466) the employee had submitted a declaration during the document verification that neither criminal case is pending against him nor he has suffered any conviction by any court of law in any criminal case.

Material facts of the case

In this case at the time when the employee submitted the application for appointment in the month of October/November 2013, he already suffered a conviction by the competent court which not only he did not disclose, but in fact, a false declaration was filed that neither any criminal case is pending against him nor he has been convicted by any court of law.

When it was found that he was convicted in a criminal case his service was terminated by the employer.

The employee approached the High Court challenging the termination order and the High Court relying on the judgment of Avtar Singh v Union of India [ (2016) 8 SCC 471] quashed the order of termination and directed the employer to reinstate the employee with all consequential benefits.

Issue is about credibility or trustworthiness

The SC, after referring to various earlier judgments in this regard, held that the question in this case is not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently acquitted or not.

The question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of the employment, i.e., while submitting the declaration/verification and/or applying for a post made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressing material fact of having involved in a criminal case. If the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him. Then the question is of TRUST.

Employer has freedom to terminate

Therefore, in such a situation, where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to the employer.

The SC held that as observed in a catena of decisions such an employee cannot claim the appointment and/or continue to be in service as a matter of right.

Some decisions relied on in this case

In Devendra Kumar v State of Uttaranchal [ (2013) 9 SCC 363] it was held that the pendency of a criminal case/proceeding is different from suppressing the 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. In fact, the information sought by the employer if not disclosed as required, would definitely amount to suppression of material information.

In Jainendra Singh v State of UP [(2012) 8 SCC 748] it was held that a candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service and the employer, having regard to the nature of employment as well as other aspects, has the discretion to terminate his services.

In Daya Shankar Yadav v Union of India [(2010) 14 SCC 103] the SC held that the purpose of seeking the information with respect to antecedents is to ascertain the character and antecedents of the candidate so as to assess his suitability for the post.


The issue considered by the Supreme Court in this case is not about the nature of the criminal proceedings pending in the court or its acquittal, but the nature of suppression of fact to the employer in order to get job which, in fact, is equal to moral turpitude.