Mumbai: An employer is not bound to terminate an employee for suppressing the fact about a pending criminal case against him, clarified the Bombay High Court while directing the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company (MSEDCL) to reconsider an employee’s termination.
The HC was hearing a plea filed by Buddheshwar Lilhare challenging his termination by the MSEDCL for failing to disclose that there was a criminal case pending against him. Lilhare was appointed as a peon on compassionate grounds due to the death of his father, who was working as a lineman with the state-run power company.
Court: Nature of accusation and appointment on compassionate ground can be taken into consideration
A division bench of Justices Rohit Deo and Anil Pansare, sitting at the Nagpur bench of the HC, observed, “We would gently remind the employer not to labour under the impression that the employer has no choice in the matter much less discretion and that the suppression per se and ipso facto must entail termination of employment.”
The bench also observed that suppression by a person on a higher post which may be sensitive in nature may be on a different pedestal than suppression by a Class IV employee who is not on a sensitive post. Besides, other factors such as the nature of accusation and appointment on compassionate ground can be taken into consideration while deciding whether or not to terminate the employee, it added.
The character and antecedents verification form attested with the appointment order had a specifical question as to whether any criminal prosecution is pending against the candidate. Lilhare did not fill the information in the verification form. The police report received by the MSEDCL, as a part of the character verification, revealed that Lilhare was accused in a case for alleged unlawful assembly.
Man said he is not conversant in English
On a show-cause notice, Lilhare replied that he is not conversant in English and made an error. He claimed that he is falsely implicated in the case and only a small role is attributed to him as he meant to intervene in the incident to end the physical altercation. However, the bench refused to accept Lilhare’s justification that he made an inadvertent error and that he had a limited role in the alleged offence.
The judges also opined that certain special circumstances existed in this case and the employer could have considered them before deciding to terminate the employee. The court has directed MSEDCL to reconsider its decision within three months.
POINTERS :
Case in detail
Petitioner works as peon at MSEDCL
Was appointed on compassionate ground
Hid a criminal case pending against him
Says was falsely implicated
Police report revealed his alleged involvement in offence
Petitioner didn't fill the information in the verification form
