Shatrughn Yadavv.The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd (F.A.C.T.) & Ors

Supreme Court Orders Reinstatement of Employee Terminated for Non-Disclosure of Unknown Criminal Case

Case Snapshot

Case Name: Shatrughn Yadav v. The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (F.A.C.T.) & Ors

Citation: 2026 INSC 829

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih

Date of Judgment: August 11, 2026

Area of Law: Service Law, Termination, Suppression of Criminal Antecedents

The Judgment in One Line

Employee cannot be terminated for suppressing a criminal case of which he had no knowledge; termination without considering nature of offence and suitability is illegal.

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment clarifies the law on termination of employment for suppression of criminal antecedents. Applying the principles from Avtar Singh, the Supreme Court held that the employer must undertake a two-pronged enquiry: first, whether there was deliberate suppression or false information; second, whether the criminal antecedent is of such nature that merits termination. The Court emphasized that termination is not an automatic consequence of the existence of a criminal case. Where the employee demonstrates bona fide ignorance of the case and provides documentary evidence, termination without considering the nature of the offence and suitability is illegal. The judgment reinforces that knowledge of a fact is a necessary prerequisite for suppression.

Background

The appellant was appointed as Technician (Process) by FACT on May 5, 2021, on consolidated pay for a two-year tenure. At the time of joining, he submitted an attestation form declaring that no criminal case was pending against him. Subsequently, a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) dated April 3, 2019, was disclosed, and the appellant was issued a show cause notice for furnishing false information.

The appellant replied that he had no knowledge of the NCR—he had not received any summons, was not arrested, and had a character certificate dated July 9, 2020, from the Superintendent of Police stating no adverse entries. He also produced a subsequent certificate confirming his name was deleted from the array of accused as no evidence was found. Despite this, his services were terminated on August 5, 2023. The High Court dismissed his writ petition, holding the matter involved disputed questions of fact. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the termination of the appellant's employment for suppression of criminal antecedents was permissible in law.

2. Whether the High Court erred in declining to examine the case on the ground of disputed questions of fact.

3. Whether the appellant had knowledge of the NCR and whether his suppression was deliberate.

What Did the Supreme Court Hold?

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the termination order, and directed reinstatement with 50% backwages. The Court's reasoning was anchored in settled principles:

Two-Pronged Enquiry Required: The Court applied the principles from Avtar Singh, holding that before terminating an employee for suppression, the employer must examine: (i) whether there was deliberate suppression or false information; and (ii) whether the criminal antecedent is of such nature that merits termination. The employer must consider the nature of the offence, the nature of the post, and the impact of suppression on suitability.

No Knowledge, No Suppression: The consistent stand of the appellant was that he had no knowledge of the NCR. The Court found this claim substantiated by documentary evidence—the character certificate dated July 9, 2020, and the subsequent certificate confirming his name was deleted from the array of accused. He was never called to the police station, never arrested, and never questioned. The respondents' submission that he must have known since his parents were also named was rejected as surmise.

Employer Failed to Undertake Enquiry: The Court observed that the authorities had not considered the specific facts and circumstances. They proceeded under the presumption that existence of a criminal antecedent automatically rendered the appellant ineligible. There were no specific findings regarding the nature of the offence, its impact on the post, or the subsequent discharge of the appellant.

Disputed Questions of Fact Not a Bar: The Court rejected the respondents' objection on maintainability, holding that the existence of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, particularly where the challenge is to the legality of the termination order itself.

Reinstatement Ordered: Since nothing indicated the appellant was otherwise unfit for the post, the Court set aside the termination and ordered reinstatement with all consequential benefits, except backwages restricted to 50%.

Key Legal Principles

1. Termination for suppression requires two-pronged enquiry — the employer must examine deliberate suppression and the nature of the antecedent.

2. Knowledge is a prerequisite for suppression — one cannot suppress something of which one had no knowledge.

3. Burden lies on the employee — the employee must substantiate the claim of ignorance with cogent material.

4. Termination is not automatic — existence of a criminal antecedent does not automatically render a candidate ineligible; the employer must consider the nature of the offence, the nature of the post, and suitability.

5. Character certificate is relevant evidence — a certificate from the police stating no adverse entries is a relevant factor.

6. Acquittal or discharge is relevant — the outcome of the criminal case must be considered.

7. Alternative remedy is not an absolute bar — writ jurisdiction is available where the challenge is to the legality of the termination order.

8. Mechanical termination is impermissible — the employer must apply its mind to the specific facts and circumstances.

Important Precedents

Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 (Three-Judge Bench)

• Summarized the law on suppression of criminal antecedents; held that the employer must consider the nature of the offence, the nature of the post, and the impact of suppression; termination is not automatic.

Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 675

• Held that the selection must not be mechanically treated as irregular merely because of incorrect facts; the employer must consider suitability.

Umesh Chandra Yadav v. Inspector General and Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 521

• Held that termination must not be done arbitrarily; the yardstick depends on the nature of the post, impact of suppression, and suitability.

Practical Impact

For advocates: This judgment is crucial when defending employees terminated for alleged suppression of criminal antecedents. It establishes that the employer must conduct a two-pronged enquiry and that knowledge is a prerequisite for suppression. Advocates should emphasize documentary evidence of ignorance, character certificates, and the nature of the offence.

For future litigation: Employers must now undertake a detailed enquiry before terminating employees for suppression. They cannot presume automatic ineligibility. The judgment reinforces that termination based on non-disclosure of a criminal case is sustainable only if the employee had knowledge and deliberately suppressed the information.

May be cited: In any service law case where an employee is terminated for suppression of criminal antecedents, particularly where the employee claims lack of knowledge and provides documentary evidence.

Lawcurb Quick Insight

The Court's emphasis on "knowledge" as a prerequisite for suppression is significant. If an employee genuinely did not know about a criminal case—especially when no summons, arrest, or questioning occurred—the employee cannot be held liable for non-disclosure.

Lawcurb Practice Note

When defending against termination for suppression, produce documentary evidence of ignorance: character certificates, police clearance certificates, and any material showing the employee was never called or arrested. Also, highlight the nature of the offence and the employee's suitability for the post.

Remember This Ratio

Suppression of criminal antecedents requires knowledge; termination without considering the nature of the offence and suitability is illegal.

Exam Lens

Q: What is the two-pronged enquiry required before terminating an employee for suppression of criminal antecedents? A: First, the employer must determine whether there was deliberate suppression or false information. Second, the employer must consider whether the criminal antecedent is of such nature that merits termination, including the nature of the offence, the nature of the post, and the impact of suppression on suitability.

Q: Can an employer terminate an employee for non-disclosure of a criminal case of which the employee had no knowledge? A: No. The very concept of suppression presupposes awareness. If the employee did not know about the criminal case, there is no deliberate suppression. The employer must establish that the employee had knowledge of the fact.

Q: What is the role of a character certificate in such cases? A: A character certificate from the police stating that there are no adverse entries is relevant evidence. If the certificate was issued after the date of the alleged criminal case, it supports the employee's claim that they had no knowledge of the case.

Final Outcome

• Appeal allowed — the Supreme Court set aside the termination order.

• Reinstatement ordered — the appellant shall be reinstated in service forthwith.

• Backwages restricted — the appellant is entitled to 50% backwages from the date of termination till reinstatement.

• Consequential benefits — the appellant is entitled to all consequential benefits except full backwages.

• Termination held illegal — the employer failed to undertake the required two-pronged enquiry and the appellant had no knowledge of the NCR.

• No costs — pending applications disposed of.

Lawcurb Verdict

This judgment is a significant clarification of the law on termination for suppression of criminal antecedents. By holding that knowledge is a prerequisite for suppression and that termination is not automatic, the Court has protected employees from being penalized for circumstances beyond their knowledge. The requirement of a two-pronged enquiry ensures that employers apply their minds to the specific facts and consider the nature of the offence and suitability. A balanced decision that upholds both the employer's right to verify antecedents and the employee's right to a fair hearing.

This report is prepared by Lawcurb for educational and informational purposes only. It is a concise summary of the judgment and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to refer to the original judgment before relying on any legal proposition.