You Cannot Hide What You Did Not Know: Supreme Court Reinstates FACT Technician Sacked Over an Undisclosed Police Report

Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has set aside the termination of a technician at The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. who was removed for not disclosing a non-cognizable report registered against him. It held that knowledge of a fact is a pre-requisite for its non-disclosure, and that termination is not an automatic consequence of a criminal antecedent; the employer must also assess whether the antecedent justifies removal.

The appellant was appointed Technician (Process) on 5 May 2021 on consolidated pay and declared in his attestation form that no criminal case was pending. A non-cognizable report under Sections 323 and 504 IPC had been registered against him on 3 April 2019, and a police certificate of 9 July 2020 showed no entry against him.

After the District Magistrate disclosed the report during verification, a show cause notice issued and his appointment was cancelled on 5 August 2023, though his name had been deleted from the accused in the final report. The Kerala High Court’s Single Judge declined to interfere, treating knowledge as a disputed fact, and a Division Bench dismissed his writ appeal on 4 July 2025.

The Key Question Before the Court

Can an employee be terminated for suppressing a criminal antecedent he did not know existed?

The Two-Pronged Test

Relying on the three-Judge Bench decision in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and on Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P., the Court held that termination for suppression requires a two-stage enquiry: first, whether there was actual suppression, which depends on the candidate’s knowledge; and second, whether the nature of the antecedent and the suppression justifies termination, considering the post, the offence and the outcome of the proceedings. “Needless to say, knowledge of a fact is a necessary pre-requisite for its non-disclosure,” the Court observed.

The appellant’s ignorance of the report was supported by documents, and the employer’s reliance on his parents’ involvement was conjecture. The authorities had not undertaken the second stage at all, presuming ineligibility from the antecedent alone, so the termination was without application of mind. The Court also held that an alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act did not bar the writ petition.

What the Court Actually Held

• The appeal was allowed and the termination order set aside.
• The appellant is to be reinstated forthwith with consequential benefits.
• Backwages are restricted to 50%, payable within eight weeks, failing which 6% interest applies.
• Termination is not an automatic consequence of disclosure of a criminal antecedent.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It protects candidates against termination for facts they could not have known.
• It requires employers to apply the second prong of Avtar Singh rather than act mechanically.
• It confirms writ jurisdiction despite an industrial dispute remedy where legality is in question.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Employees

• Gather documentary proof of lack of knowledge, such as police certificates showing no entry.
• A bare plea of ignorance without cogent material will not suffice.

For Employers

• Record findings on both suppression and the gravity of the antecedent before terminating.
• Do not rely on conjecture, such as family members’ involvement, to infer knowledge.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

A 2019 non-cognizable report under Sections 323 and 504 IPC, from which his name was later removed.

No. The Court restricted backwages to 50%.

No. The Court said a bare plea without cogent and reliable material will not suffice.

Conclusion