Supreme Court: Probationer's criminal past not enough for termination without proof of knowledge

The case concerns an appeal by an employee against the termination of his appointment by Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (F.A.C.T.) for allegedly suppressing information about a criminal case (NCR) in his attestation form. The core issue is whether the termination was legally permissible given the employee's claim of bona fide ignorance and the subsequent discharge from the case.

Petitioner/Appellant: Shatrughn Yadav; Respondents: The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (F.A.C.T.) and others; Bench: Justice Augustine George Masih.

• Leave granted for the appeal.
• The Court rejected the respondent's objection that the matter was not maintainable in writ jurisdiction due to the availability of remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
• The Court cited the three-Judge Bench decision in Avtar Singh v Union of India, noting that termination for suppression of criminal antecedents is not automatic and must consider specific facts, the nature of the offense, and whether the candidate had knowledge of the case.
• The Court referenced Ravindra Kumar v State of UP and Umesh Chandra Yadav v Inspector General, emphasizing that mechanical termination without considering suitability and special circumstances is impermissible.
• The provided text ends before the final operative order (such as reinstatement or dismissal of the appeal) is stated.

Written from the document by AI, and checked against it. The original below is authoritative.

The original document