The termination of a respondent from service due to the concealment of material information about criminal cases registered against him. The respondent's appeal for reinstatement with 50% back-wages was upheld by the High Court of Gauhati, which found the punishment of termination too harsh. However, the appellants challenged this decision, arguing that the respondent's actions warranted dismissal, particularly given the integrity standards required in uniformed services. The Supreme Court of India ultimately set aside the High Court's decision, restoring the termination of the respondent's employment.

1. Background of the Case

• Inquiry Officer's Findings: The respondent was found guilty of concealing information about criminal cases and submitting false documents.
• Disciplinary Authority's Decision: The respondent was terminated from service for a serious breach of conduct.
• High Court's Ruling: The High Court of Gauhati ordered reinstatement with 50% back-wages, suggesting a lesser penalty.

2. Appeal by the Appellants

• Arguments Presented: The appellants argued that the respondent's actions, including deliberate concealment and submission of false documents, warranted dismissal. They emphasized the importance of integrity in uniformed services.

3. Legal Precedents and Standards

• References to Prior Cases:
  • State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhupendra Yadav (2023): Discussed employer discretion in terminating or condoning omissions in disclosure.
  • Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India (2010): Outlined consequences of non-disclosure of criminal history.
  • Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Prasaran Nigam Limited v. Anil Kanwaria (2021): Stressed the importance of honesty in declarations for employment.

4. Supreme Court's Decision

• Findings: The Supreme Court found that the respondent was aware of the criminal case against him and had willfully withheld this information. The Court noted that the respondent's actions breached the required standards of integrity for law enforcement positions.
• Conclusion: The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's decision, restoring the termination order. The Court held that the appellants acted reasonably and without malafides in terminating the respondent's employment.

5. Final Order

• The appeal was allowed, and the respondent's termination was upheld. The parties were left to bear their own expenses.