The Supreme Court has upheld the discharge of a group of Railway Protection Force (RPF) and Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) constables who failed to disclose pending criminal cases during the recruitment process. The Court reiterated that the deliberate suppression of material information regarding criminal antecedents clearly bears on the character of the employee and justifies termination. A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe noted that as per the RPF Rules, an employee can be discharged at any time for suppressing criminal cases.
The Court observed that the mandate of law requires a candidate intending to participate in the selection process to provide complete information, which includes the subsistence of any criminal case against them. It emphasized that the rules governing the field make it clear that if disclosure is not made, the candidate is liable to be discharged from service at any point in time.
The appellants had applied for recruitment to the post of constables in the RPF and RPSF. They cleared the written examination, physical and efficiency tests and were included in the select list. During document verification and medical examination, however, they did not disclose the pendency of criminal cases against them. The authorities subsequently discovered the pending criminal proceedings while the appellants were undergoing training. Finding that the criminal cases had been deliberately suppressed, the authorities discharged the appellants between June and October 2015.
The candidates' discharge was upheld by the Allahabad High Court, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court. Affirming the impugned judgment, the Court observed that despite being aware of the Railway Protection Force Rules governing recruitment, which expressly provided for disqualification upon suppression of factual information, the appellants proceeded to participate in the verification and medical examination.
The Court relied on Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471 concerning deliberate suppression of multiple pending criminal cases. It held that the present case fell squarely within that principle because the appellants consciously failed to disclose the criminal proceedings in their verification forms.
The Court stated that the facts of the present case fall under the instance referred to in para 38.7 of the judgment in Avtar Singh (supra), as the appellants have chosen not to indicate pendency of the criminal cases in the verification form. It quoted from Avtar Singh, holding that in a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases, such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.
The Court further noted that the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have recorded a finding that there is no averment in the pleadings about the ignorance of the appellants qua such pendency. Under these circumstances, the Court held that the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have not committed any error in dismissing the Writ Petitions.
The Bench rejected the argument that the subsequent acquittal of several appellants entitled them to reinstatement. It distinguished the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Pawan Kumar v Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 441, noting that in that case the acquittal had occurred before the candidate filled out the attestation form. The Court also held that Spo/Constable Irb Satpal Singh vs State Of Punjab was distinguishable because that case concerned an employee who had already served for 12 years.
The appeals were dismissed. The cause title is BAPPA BARAI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (with connected cases).