UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus DILIP KUMAR MALLICK

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus DILIP KUMAR MALLICK

Because the respondent undisputedly omitted to disclose the pendency of a criminal case in the verification roll and had surrendered and been on bail at the time, such suppression constituted misconduct justifying removal; consequently the Division Bench erred in directing the employer to impose any lesser punishment and that part of the High Court order was set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Union of India & Ors.; Respondent: Dilip Kumar Mallick
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Against Division Bench Judgment of the High Court of Orissa
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Proceedings, Suppression of Antecedents/verification Roll, Quantum of Punishment, Reinstatement and Consequential Service Benefits
Service Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Disciplinary Proceedings Suppression of Antecedents/verification Roll Quantum of Punishment Reinstatement and Consequential Service Benefits

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Union of India & Ors.

Appellant

Dilip Kumar Mallick

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Against Division Bench Judgment of the High Court of Orissa

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded for suppression of a pending criminal case in the verification roll
  2. 2 Whether suppression/concealment of a pending criminal case in the verification form amounts to misconduct warranting removal from service

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondent undisputedly omitted to disclose the pendency of a criminal case in the verification roll and had surrendered and been on bail at the time, such suppression constituted misconduct justifying removal; consequently the Division Bench erred in directing the employer to impose any lesser punishment and that part of the High Court order was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Set aside paragraph 11 of the impugned order dated 25.03.2019 (Division Bench of High Court) which interfered with the quantum of punishment
  • Writ petition dismissed (respondent's writ petition dismissed) without any order as to costs