Back
Upholds Discharge of RPF Constables for Concealing Pending Criminal Cases
The on , decisively upheld the discharge of a group of and constables who had concealed pending criminal cases during their recruitment. A bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe ruled that bears directly on an employee’s character and justifies termination, even if the candidates were later acquitted.
A Cloud of Omission: The Recruitment Journey
The case originated from an employment notice issued on , for constable positions in the RPF and RPSF. The appellants—Bappa Barai and others—cleared the written examination, physical tests, and were empanelled. During document verification and medical examinations held between , the candidates filled attestation forms that explicitly asked whether they had ever been arrested or prosecuted. Despite having pending criminal cases against them, each answered “No.”
The authorities issued allotment letters, and the recruits reported for training. It was only after training began that the RPF discovered the suppressed criminal proceedings. Between , each recruit was discharged from service under , , and the attestation form’s warnings.
Two Bites at the Apple: Litigation and Reconsideration
The constables first approached the , where Single Judges set aside the original discharge orders and directed the authorities to re-evaluate the cases in light of this Court’s landmark judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016). In , after detailed, reasoned reassessments, the authorities reached the same conclusion: the suppression was deliberate and the recruits were unsuitable for appointment.
A second round of writ petitions was dismissed by Single Judges, and a Division Bench of the affirmed those decisions on . The constables then appealed to the .
The Battle of Perspectives: Suppression vs.
Appellants’ Arguments: Senior counsels and contended that mere , without independent evaluation of the nature of the offences or the candidates’ subsequent conduct, could not justify discharge. They relied on Avtar Singh , which requires employers to consider special circumstances before acting on suppression. They also cited Pawan Kumar v. Union of India (2023), where a constable was reinstated after his criminal case ended in before he filled the attestation form. Additionally, all 17 appellants had been acquitted, 14 before the discharge orders. They alleged , pointing to 26 similarly situated candidates who had been reinstated.
Respondents’ Arguments: Additional Solicitor General argued that the appellants had deliberately lied on the attestation form. Each case was individually reconsidered under Avtar Singh , yielding . The respondents distinguished Pawan Kumar because the there predated the attestation form, while here the cases were pending at the time of verification. On parity, they noted that 12 of 19 reinstated candidates were acquitted before filling the form, and the others were reinstated under specific court orders or for trivial allegations—none of which applied to the appellants.
Legal Analysis: The Application of Avtar Singh
The Court examined the regulatory framework, noting that requires before appointment, and permits discharge at any stage if the competent authority deems it fit. warned that false declarations would lead to disqualification or dismissal. Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the attestation form explicitly stated that suppression of factual information would render a candidate unfit for employment.
Applying the principles from Avtar Singh , the Court concluded that this case squarely fell under para 38.7, which deals with “deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases.” In such cases, false information by itself assumes significance, and an employer may pass an appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services.
The Court distinguished Pawan Kumar : in that case, the candidate had been acquitted before filling the attestation form. Similarly, Satpal Singh involved an employee who had already served for 12 years and sought damages through a civil suit—far removed from the present facts.
Key Observations: The Court’s Firm Stance
“The mandate of law is that a candidate who intends to participate in the selection process must provide complete information, which includes subsistence of any criminal case against him/her. The rules that govern the field make it clear that if the disclosure is not made, the candidate is liable to be discharged from service at any point of time.”
“ always lie in the choices that one makes. The appellants chose to say ‘NO’ despite the categorical warning in the RPF Rules, Employment Notice and the Attestation Form which also indicated the consequence of .”
“The facts of the present case fall under the instance referred in para 38.7 of the judgment in Avtar Singh , as the appellants have chosen not to indicate in the verification form.”
Final Verdict: Appeals Dismissed, Discharge Upheld
The found no error in the of the Single Judge and Division Bench. It held that the authorities had properly applied Avtar Singh , the appellants were given full opportunity to represent their cases, and the decision to discharge them was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.
All civil appeals were dismissed with no order as to . The judgment reinforces the principle that for disciplined forces like the RPF, deliberate suppression of criminal antecedents—regardless of subsequent acquittals—can permanently bar a candidate from appointment.
