Enquiry Necessary to Dismiss Employee for Suppression

of Criminal Antecedents: Supreme Court

Case Details

Case Title: - Shatrugan Yadav Versus Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore

Ltd.

(F.A.C.T) and Others

Case No.:- SLP (Civil) No. 7197 of 2026

Bench:- Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol

Hon’ble Justice Augustine George Masih

Counsel for Appellant: - Mr. PV. Dinesh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anna Oommen and

Adv. Mr. Abdulla Naseeh

Counsel for Respondent: - Mr. Parthiv Goswami, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Jha,

AOR Mr. Kartik Jha, Adv. Ms. Atiga Singh, Adv. Ms. Nitika Sud

Decided:- August 11, 2026

Summary

The Supreme Court of India made a significant ruling that non-disclosure of

criminal antecedents cannot automatically lead to termination of an employee,

the employer must apply its mind based on the nature of concealment whether it

was a deliberative attempt to suppressing of such antecedents. The Kerela High

Court’s decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India based on its

erred decision of not considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

What Happened?

The Appellant Shatrugan Yadav was employed by Fertilizers and Chemicals

Travancore Ltd. (F.A.C.T) in the post of Technician (Process). At the time of

Joining, he was required to disclose information concerning criminal

antecedents. Later on, checking the background of the appellant it was found

that a non-cognizable Report was registered against him, which was not

disclosed by him. On receiving such report, the Company treated the non-

disclosure as suppression of material information and therefore terminated the

employment. The Appellant then by a Writ Petition in the Kerela High Court

challenged such termination with the statement that he did not have any

knowledge of existence of the proceeding at the time of filling his declaration

form.

Supreme Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court observed that knowledge of a fact is a necessary

requirement for its suppression. If an employee was genuinely unaware of a

criminal proceeding, non-disclosure cannot automatically be treated as

misconduct. Employers must conduct a fair and reasoned enquiry instead of

adopting a mechanical approach. It held that termination for non-disclosure of

criminal antecedents cannot be mechanical. The employer must examine

whether there was conscious suppression, the nature of the offence, the

employee’s knowledge, and the surrounding circumstances before imposing

termination.

Final Order

The Supreme Court set aside the termination order, directed FACT to reinstate

Shatrughan Yadav with consequential service benefits, and awarded 50% back

wages, payable within eight weeks.

Why this Judgement matters

This judgment establishes that suppression of criminal antecedents does not

automatically mean termination. If a person genuinely did not know about the

criminal proceeding against him, it would be difficult to say that the person

deliberately did not disclose it. The Court observed that knowledge is a

necessary requirement for suppression. At the same time, the Court did not say

that every claim of ignorance should automatically be accepted.

Conclusion

This judgment establishes the principles of fairness, and natural justice in public

employment. It makes clear that termination based on non-disclosure of

criminal antecedents should not be automatic and must be based on a careful

assessment of the employee's knowledge, the seriousness of the allegations, and

the overall circumstances of the case.

OLQ LAW FIRM

Call/WhatsApp: 89819 49111