{"id":58091,"date":"2016-07-25T14:15:22","date_gmt":"2016-07-25T08:45:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=58091"},"modified":"2016-09-13T14:46:09","modified_gmt":"2016-09-13T09:16:09","slug":"recourse-available-to-employer-in-case-of-suppression-of-fact-of-criminal-antecedent-by-the-employee-discussed-matter-placed-before-appropriate-bench","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/25\/recourse-available-to-employer-in-case-of-suppression-of-fact-of-criminal-antecedent-by-the-employee-discussed-matter-placed-before-appropriate-bench\/","title":{"rendered":"Recourse available to employer in case of suppression of fact of criminal antecedent by the employee\u2019 discussed; Matter placed before appropriate bench"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: The 3-judge bench of Ranjana Gogoi, Arun Mishra and P.C. Pantt, JJ was called to resolve the conflict of opinion in the various decisions of Division Benches of this Court as noticed by this Court in Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P., (2012) 8 SCC 748<\/a> where the Court had considered opinions in various decisions on the question of suppression of information or submitting false information in the verification form as to the question of having been criminally prosecuted, arrested or as to pendency of a criminal case.<\/p>\n

The Court, before placing the matter before the appropriate larger bench, considered the conflicting decisions and gave elaborate guidelines. Some of the important guidelines are as follows:<\/p>\n