The Supreme Court has upheld the discharge of a batch of Railway Protection Force (RPF) and Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) constables who had failed to disclose pending criminal cases in their verification and attestation forms.
A Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe dismissed the appeals and held that the appellants had deliberately suppressed material information about pending criminal cases despite specific requirements in the recruitment rules and attestation form.
Candidates Cleared Selection and Sent for Training
The appellants had applied for recruitment to the post of constables in the RPF and RPSF pursuant to an employment notice issued on February 23, 2011.
They cleared the written examination, physical and efficiency tests and were included in the select list. After document verification and medical examination, they were issued allotment letters and sent for training.
However, during training, the authorities discovered that criminal cases were pending against the candidates and that none of them had disclosed these cases during the verification process. They were consequently discharged from service between June and October 2015.
High Court Directed Reconsideration, But Discharge Was Reaffirmed
The candidates challenged their discharge before the Allahabad High Court.
Initially, Single Judge Benches quashed the discharge orders and directed the authorities to reconsider their cases in accordance with the Supreme Court's principles in Avtar Singh v. Union of India.
Following the High Court's directions, the authorities reconsidered the cases and passed detailed orders in 2017, again discharging the candidates on the ground of suppression and non-disclosure of criminal antecedents.
The Single Judges subsequently dismissed their fresh challenges, and the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court upheld those decisions.
Supreme Court: Disclosure of Criminal Cases Was Mandatory
The Supreme Court examined the recruitment framework applicable to RPF and RPSF personnel.
Under Rule 52 of the RPF Rules, 1987, the character and antecedents of a recruit are required to be verified before formal appointment. If the recruit is found unsuitable after verification, the rules provide that the person shall not be appointed.
Rule 67 also permits discharge of a direct recruit during the training stage under the circumstances specified in the rule.
The employment notice specifically warned candidates that adverse antecedents could result in non-appointment and that false declarations could lead to disqualification, criminal proceedings and dismissal.
The attestation form similarly stated that suppression of factual information would constitute disqualification and could render a candidate unfit for government employment.
Candidates Had Answered ‘No’ Despite Pending Cases
The Court noted that the attestation form specifically required candidates to disclose whether they had ever been arrested or prosecuted.
Despite this, the appellants answered “No” even though criminal cases were pending against them.
The Bench observed that the candidates had knowledge of the pending cases and deliberately chose not to disclose them. In these circumstances, the Court held that there was no need for further discussion on whether the non-disclosure amounted to suppression of material information.
Supreme Court Applies Avtar Singh Principles
The Court examined the case in light of the principles laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India.
The Supreme Court noted that Avtar Singh requires truthful disclosure of conviction, acquittal, arrest or pendency of criminal cases. At the same time, the employer is required to consider the circumstances of the individual case while deciding whether a candidate should be appointed or retained.
However, the Court specifically relied upon paragraph 38.7 of Avtar Singh, which recognises that deliberate suppression of multiple pending criminal cases assumes significance and may justify cancellation of candidature or termination of service.
The Bench held that the present appellants fell squarely within this category because they had deliberately failed to disclose multiple pending criminal cases.
Earlier Acquittal of Some Candidates Did Not Help
The appellants argued that 14 out of 17 candidates had been acquitted in the criminal cases and that several similarly situated candidates had been reinstated.
The Court, however, found this argument insufficient.
The authorities informed the Court that 19 candidates had been reinstated. Of these, 12 had been acquitted even before filling up the attestation form and therefore stood on a different footing.
The remaining candidates had either been reinstated pursuant to High Court orders or after case-by-case consideration where the allegations were found to be trivial. The Supreme Court held that the present appellants could not claim parity with those candidates because they had deliberately suppressed pending criminal cases.
Pawan Kumar and Satpal Singh Judgments Distinguished
The appellants relied upon the Supreme Court's decisions in Pawan Kumar v. Union of India and SPO/Constable IRB Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab.
The Bench distinguished both decisions.
In Pawan Kumar, the criminal case had already ended in acquittal before the candidate filled the attestation form. Therefore, the facts were materially different from the present case, where the criminal cases were pending when the appellants submitted their verification forms.
Similarly, Satpal Singh concerned a person who had already served for 12 years and was subsequently discharged merely because of a pending criminal case. The Supreme Court held that the circumstances of that case were entirely different from those of the present appellants, who were recruits and had deliberately concealed pending cases during the recruitment process.
Natural Justice Requirements Were Satisfied
The Court also considered whether the principles of natural justice had been violated.
It noted that the original discharge orders were set aside by the High Court and the authorities were directed to reconsider the cases in accordance with Avtar Singh.
Thereafter, detailed and reasoned orders were passed in 2017. The candidates had the opportunity to represent their cases, and both the Single Judge and Division Bench subsequently examined the legality of the discharge orders.
The Supreme Court therefore held that the requirements of natural justice had been fully complied with.
Appeals Dismissed
The Supreme Court ultimately found no error in the decisions of the Allahabad High Court.
The Bench held that the High Court's conclusions were consistent with the principles laid down in Avtar Singh, particularly in cases involving deliberate suppression of multiple pending criminal cases.
The batch of civil appeals was therefore dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Key Legal Principle
A candidate seeking appointment in the RPF/RPSF is required to truthfully disclose pending criminal cases. Deliberate suppression of multiple pending criminal cases in the verification or attestation form can justify discharge from service, particularly where the applicable recruitment rules expressly provide for such consequences.
Case Details
Representation:-
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Sanjay M Nuli Sr. Adv., Mr. Anand Mishra AOR, Mr. Amrendra Kumar Singh Adv., Mr. Karmendra Pratap Singh Adv., Mr. Praveen Swarup Adv., Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh Adv., Mr. Siddharth Saket Adv., Mr. Pradyut Kashyap Adv., Mr. Ayushman Aggarwal Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee A.S.G., Mr. Ketan Paul Adv., Ms. Vimla Sinha Adv., Mr. Abhishek Singh Adv., Ms. Rukhamani Bobde Adv., Mr. Vikash Shukle Adv., Mr. Amrish Kumar AOR
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy