site-7713004-2045-4990.mystrikingly.com Open in urlscan Pro
23.205.231.44  Public Scan

Form analysis
0 forms found in the DOM

Text Content

Site Title

 * Home
 * …  
   * Home




Site Title

 * Home
 * …  
   * Home




   Home
 * 
 * 
 * Powered By



 * MERE SUPPRESSION OF INFORMATION ABOUT CRIMINAL DOES NOT MEAN THAT EMPLOYER
   CAN ARBITRARILY TERMINATE EMPLOYEE FROM SERVICE: SUPREME COURT
   
   THE TOP COURT STATED WHILE HEARING A CASE THAT THE MERE SUPPRESSION OF AN
   INDIVIDUAL'S ACQUITTAL OR CONVICTION CANNOT BE USED AS A REASON FOR AN
   EMPLOYER TO TERMINATE AN EMPLOYEE FROM HIS OR HER SERVICES.
   
   MANY TIMES, IT IS FOUND THAT THE INFORMATION IS INACCURATE OR THAT THE
   CHARGES WERE MADE UP AGAINST A PERSON. AS A RESULT, NO EMPLOYER HAS THE RIGHT
   TO TERMINATE AN EMPLOYEE UNTIL EVERYTHING CAN BE PROVEN IN COURT AND THE
   PERSON IS LEGALLY DECLARED GUILTY.
   
   THE COURT ALSO STATED THAT WHEN AN EMPLOYEE JOINS A NEW JOB, HE OR SHE SHOULD
   PROVIDE ALL RELEVANT FACTS TO THE EMPLOYER. EMPLOYEES WHO GIVE FALSE
   INFORMATION TO THEIR EMPLOYERS OR OMIT ESSENTIAL FACTS PURPOSELY ABOUT THEIR
   LEGAL DISPUTES LOSE THEIR LEGAL RIGHT TO SEEK AN APPOINTMENT OR CONTINUITY IN
   EMPLOYMENT.
   
   PAWAN KUMAR FILED A PETITION IN THE SUPREME COURT CONTESTING THE DELHI HIGH
   COURT'S JUDGMENT IN THE MATTER OF AVTAR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA. THE HIGH
   COURT APPROVED PAWAN KUMAR'S TERMINATION WHILE HE WAS UNDERGOING HIS
   CONSTABLE TRAINING. THE REASON BEHIND THIS TERMINATION WAS THE PETITIONER
   OMITTED INFORMATION ABOUT THE FIR FILED AGAINST HIM WHEN FILLING OUT THE
   FORM.
   
   THE HONORABLE JUDICIAL BENCH NOTED AFTER REVIEWING THE CASE THAT THE FIR WAS
   RECORDED ONCE THE FORM WAS SUBMITTED. FURTHERMORE, THE CLAIM LEVELED AGAINST
   THE PETITIONER DID NOT INVOLVE MORAL TURPITUDE, AND THE CHARACTER OF THE CASE
   WAS ALSO UNSUITABLE, SO THE PETITIONER GOT ACQUITTED.
   
   ACCORDING TO THE COURT, THE AUTHORITIES, IN THIS CASE, ACTED MECHANICALLY AND
   DID NOT TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE FACTS BEFORE DISMISSING THE CANDIDATE, WHICH IS
   NOT FUNDAMENTALLY CORRECT.
   
   AS A RESULT, THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURNED THE DELHI HIGH COURT'S VERDICT AND
   ORDERED THE PETITIONER'S REINSTATEMENT INTO THE SERVICE.



Create a site with
This website is built with Strikingly.
Create yours today!

This website is built with Strikingly.

Create your FREE website today!

start now








Cookie Use
We use cookies to ensure a smooth browsing experience. By continuing we assume
you accept the use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More