Subtitle
The Orissa High Court held that Orissa High Court criminal case disclosure principles require employers to prove an employee knew about pending criminal proceedings before terminating service for non-disclosure.
Orissa High Court Dismisses State’s Appeal
The Orissa High Court ruled that an employer cannot remove an employee merely for failing to disclose criminal cases in a verification roll. The employer must first prove that the employee knew about those criminal proceedings when submitting the form. The Court held that Orissa High Court criminal case disclosure principles prevent employers from treating an omission as deliberate suppression without proof of knowledge. It therefore dismissed the State Government’s appeal against the reinstatement of a woman police constable.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman delivered the judgment on 22 June 2026 in State of Odisha and others v. Sagarika Parida (W.A. No.357 of 2026). The Bench affirmed the Single Judge’s order quashing the respondent’s discharge from service.
Background of the Dispute
The appeal challenged the judgment dated 25 September 2025 in W.P.(C) No.32287 of 2020. The Single Judge had set aside the Deputy Commissioner of Police’s order dated 12 November 2020 discharging the respondent from service.
The Single Judge also directed the authorities to reinstate Sagarika Parida with all consequential benefits. The Court further ordered the authorities to treat her absence from service as “on duty” and release the financial benefits within the prescribed time.
The authorities discharged the respondent after alleging that she had provided false information in her verification roll. Clause 7 required every candidate to disclose whether they had ever faced criminal charges or imprisonment. The respondent answered “No.”
Later, the authorities found that three criminal cases had been registered against her. One case ended in acquittal on 4 August 2017, shortly before she submitted the verification roll on 21 August 2017. The remaining cases concluded either before the National Lok Adalat or with findings in her favour. The allegations involved offences under Sections 341, 294, 323, 506, 354, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
State’s Case Before the Division Bench
Additional Government Advocate Mr. Saswat Das argued that courts should not treat suppression of criminal antecedents lightly. He submitted that police personnel belong to a disciplined force that demands high standards of integrity and character.
The State argued that deliberately hiding criminal cases damaged the credibility of the police force and justified the respondent’s discharge.
Ms. Pallavi Mohanty represented the respondent.
Respondent Claimed Lack of Knowledge
The Division Bench noted that one criminal case remained pending when the respondent submitted the verification roll. However, she consistently maintained that she had no knowledge of any of the criminal cases.
The respondent argued that her declaration could not amount to deliberate suppression because she did not know about the proceedings.
The Court also observed that all three criminal cases ultimately ended in her favour. It rejected the State’s submission that the criminal proceedings remained pending.
Reliance on Avtar Singh v. Union of India
The Bench relied extensively on the Supreme Court’s decision in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471, which governs cases involving suppression of criminal antecedents in public employment.
The Court referred to paragraph 38 of the judgment. It reiterated that candidates must provide truthful information. However, employers must objectively examine each case before cancelling an appointment or terminating service.
The Bench particularly relied on paragraph 38.8. The Supreme Court had clarified that if a candidate did not know about a pending criminal case while filling the verification form, the appointing authority must independently assess the seriousness of the offence before taking action.
The Court also cited paragraph 38.11. It states that authorities cannot hold a person guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi unless they establish that the person knew the relevant facts.
Court Reiterates Need to Prove Knowledge
The Bench observed that character and antecedent verification remains an important part of assessing suitability for public employment.
However, it stressed that employers must examine all relevant facts before terminating an employee.
The Court held that authorities cannot presume suppression merely because criminal proceedings existed. If the employee genuinely lacked knowledge of the criminal complaints, non-disclosure alone cannot justify termination.
Accordingly, the Bench ruled that an employer must establish the employee’s knowledge before treating the omission as deliberate suppression.
Additional DCP’s Report Supported the Respondent
The Court attached significant weight to the report dated 22 February 2019 submitted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime), Commissionerate Headquarters, Bhubaneswar.
The report accepted the respondent’s explanation that she did not know about the criminal cases. It also noted that even the acquittal occurred in her absence. The report concluded that she had not made a false declaration in the verification roll.
The Bench noted that the State never challenged or disputed this report. Since the competent authority had already found that the respondent lacked knowledge of the criminal proceedings, the Court found no basis to uphold the discharge order.
Appeal Dismissed
The Division Bench found no error in the Single Judge’s decision. It held that the respondent’s case squarely fell within the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh and Pawan Kumar.
The Court concluded that the State failed to prove the respondent knew about the criminal cases when she submitted the verification roll. Without such proof, the authorities could not sustain her termination on the ground of suppressing material facts.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ appeal, upheld the respondent’s reinstatement with consequential benefits, and disposed of the pending interlocutory applications.
