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

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.

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

What the court decided

• 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.

Also in the document

• The Court held that the existence of an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not act as an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction when challenging the legality of a termination order.
• The Court emphasized that before holding a person guilty of suppression, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to them.
• The judgment notes that the employee was on probation at the time of termination.