Law Insider India

Legal News, Current Trends and Legal Insight | Supreme Court of India and High Courts

[Landmark Judgement] Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India (2022)

2 min read
Landmark Judgment Law Insider (1)

Published on: 03 October, 2022 at 13:24 IST

Court – Supreme Court of India

Citation – Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1300

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that an employee must provide truthful information about his previous criminal antecedents including prosecution and conviction for accessing his character for the purpose of employment.

It is held that neither the gravity of the criminal offence nor the ultimate acquittal is relevant if a person suppresses a material fact of his being involved in a criminal case, in the personal information furnished to the employer. The only relevance is suppression of the material information about the previous criminal antecedents which reveals the character of the person.

Para – 62

In the aforesaid case, this Court held that the purpose of requiring an employee to furnish information regarding prosecution/conviction, etc. in the verification form was to assess his character and antecedents for the purpose of employment and continuation in service; that suppression of material information and making a false statement in reply to queries relating to prosecution and conviction had a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee; and that where it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to matters which had a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he could be terminated from service during the period of probation without holding any inquiry.

This Court also made it clear that neither the gravity of the criminal offence nor the ultimate acquittal therein was relevant when considering whether a probationer who suppresses a material fact (of his being involved in a criminal case, in the personal information furnished to the employer), is fit to be continued as a probationer.

Drafted By Abhijit Mishra

Key Words – Criminal Proceedings, Public Employer, Doctrine of “unreasonableness”