During probation, employer can terminate service of employee without notice if there is suppression of material facts: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that during the probation period of an employee, it is always open for the employer to cancel the candidature or terminate his service without notice, in case of any suppression of material facts or submission of false information by such employee (Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India and Others)..The Division Bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy was hearing an appeal filed by one Rajesh Kumar against a set of orders passed by the Delhi High Court on April 20 and April 29 in 2008. .In 1994, the appellant was appointed sub-inspector in the Delhi Police. The respondent authorities received a complaint in the year 1996, stating that the appellant was a deserter from the Army and he was declared an absconder after he deserted the armed forces in 1992.This was confirmed by the Station House Officer, Inderpuri, who also confirmed the fact that he had not disclosed the same in a form filled by him. The respondent authorities, therefore, terminated the appellant's services during the probation period.This was challenged by the appellant. He argued that he was not given any opportunity to present his version and the order terminating his service was passed by conducting an enquiry behind his back. .At the outset, the Supreme Court noted that the order of termination of employment of the appellant was only a termination simpliciter (simply and unconditionally) and was well within the powers enshrined under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules of 196."During the period of probation, it is always open to the employer to verify the antecedents of a temporary appointee, in case any information is received by way of complaint or otherwise. Merely because the antecedents were verified by addressing a letter to the SHO/Inderpuri, it cannot be said that respondents have conducted regular inquiry, so as to give an opportunity to the appellant. In absence of any allegation in the impugned order, the order of termination dated 14.08.1996 cannot be said to be an order casting stigma on the appellant," the Court observed.The Court relied upon its decision in Avatar Singh v. Union of India and Others, wherein it was observed that once verification form requires certain information to be furnished, the declarant is duty bound to furnish it correctly and any suppression of material facts can be ground for termination of service.The Court, therefore, rejected the appeal noting that "before the declaration of probation, on the ground that the appellant has not disclosed particulars of earlier employment, it is always open for the respondents to terminate his temporary service without issuing any notice."Advocate Anshu Mahajan argued for the appellant. Additional Solicitor General of India Jayant Sud argued for the respondents..[Read Order]