The Supreme Court has dismissed a batch of civil appeals challenging the discharge of Railway Protection Force constables who deliberately suppressed pending criminal cases during the verification process, holding that such suppression falls squarely within the principles laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and warrants termination without further inquiry.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellants, including Bappa Barai and others, applied for the post of constables in the Railway Protection Force (RPF) and Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) pursuant to an Employment Notice issued by the Chief Security Commissioner, RPF on 23.02.2011. They appeared for the written examination on 16.06.2013, cleared the physical and efficiency tests, and found their names in the select list published on 17.09.2014. They were called for document verification and medical examination between May and June 2014.
Key Facts
- It is an admitted fact that none of the appellants disclosed pending criminal cases against them during the verification process.
- Pursuant to verification and medical examination, the respondent authorities issued allotment letters and sent the appellants for training.
- During training, the authorities discovered the subsisting criminal cases and the deliberate non-disclosure.
- Orders of discharge from service were issued to each appellant between June and October 2015.
- The discharge orders were based on Rules 52 and 67 of the RPF Rules, 1987, Clause 9(f) of the Employment Notice dated 23.02.2011, and paragraph 3 of the Attestation Form.
- The Attestation Form categorically required disclosure of arrest and prosecution history (Column 12(a) and 12(b)), with warnings that false information or suppression would render the candidate unfit for employment and liable to termination.
Procedural History
- 2015: Appellants approached the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 challenging the discharge orders.
- First round: Single Judge Benches quashed the discharge orders and directed reconsideration per Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471.
- March, May, December 2017: Authorities passed detailed reasoned orders discharging each appellant after independent assessment under Avtar Singh principles.
- Second round: Appellants filed fresh writ petitions against the 2017 discharge orders; Single Judges dismissed them.
- 22.09.2021: Division Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed all writ appeals, upholding the Single Judge decisions.
- Present appeals: Civil appeals filed in the Supreme Court against the Division Bench judgment.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought quashing of the 2017 discharge orders, reinstatement in service with consequential benefits, and parity with 26 similarly situated candidates who had been reinstated.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the discharge of probationary constables for deliberate suppression of pending criminal cases during verification is sustainable under the RPF Rules and the principles in Avtar Singh, particularly where the authorities conducted a post-hoc reasoned review as directed by the High Court.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Senior Counsels Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Anand Sanjay M. Nuli contended that:
- The High Court erred in not setting aside the 2017 discharge orders despite Avtar Singh categorically stating that removal for mere suppression without independent evaluation is arbitrary.
- Pawan Kumar v. Union of India (2023) 12 SCC 317 quashed a similar RPF discharge order for non-disclosure of a criminal case.
- SPO/Constable IRB Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2026 INSC 798) held that discharge cannot be ordered solely on the ground of a pending criminal case.
- All appellants were acquitted of all charges, with 14 out of 17 acquitted before discharge.
- At least 26 similarly situated candidates with prior criminal antecedents, initially discharged for non-disclosure, were reinstated (11 acquitted before filling the attestation form, 15 after). Non-reinstatement of appellants violates parity and is arbitrary.
For the Respondent
Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee submitted that:
- The appellants' cases were re-examined per Avtar Singh principles, and reasoned discharge orders were passed in 2017 after independent assessment.
- Suppression of material information in the verification form bearing on character disentitles a person from claiming unfettered right to continuity in service.
- Pawan Kumar is distinguishable: there, the FIR was filed on 04.04.2011 and the appellant was acquitted on 12.08.2011, much before filling the attestation form on 27.05.2014. Here, all appellants had pending criminal cases at the time of filling the verification form.
- Satpal Singh is inapplicable: the appellant there had served 12 years as SPO and the appeal arose from a civil suit for declaratory relief and service benefits.
- Of the 19 reinstated candidates, 12 were acquitted before filling the attestation form (different footing); the remaining 7 were reinstated pursuant to High Court orders or because allegations were found trivial on case-by-case basis. No such similarity exists for the appellants.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework governing RPF recruitment. Rules 52 and 67 of the RPF Rules, 1987 mandate character and antecedent verification before formal appointment (Rule 52.1), provide that a recruit found unsuitable shall not be appointed (Rule 52.2), and empower the Principal Chief Security Commissioner to discharge a direct recruit at any stage before formal appointment if deemed fit in the interest of the Force (Rule 67.2). Clause 9(f) of the Employment Notice explicitly warns that false declaration leads to disqualification, criminal case, and dismissal. The Attestation Form declares that furnishing false information or suppression of factual information is a disqualification and renders the candidate unfit, and that if discovered at any time during service, services are liable to be terminated.
The Court then turned to the principles in Avtar Singh (paragraphs 38.1 - 38.11). It identified that the present facts fall under paragraph 38.7: "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 noted that the Single Judge and Division Bench had recorded a concurrent finding that no averment was made in the pleadings about the appellants' ignorance of the pending cases. The appellants had categorically declared "NO" in Columns 12(a) and 12(b) despite the categorical warning. The Court held:
"Good conduct and strength of character 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 non-disclosure. This being the situation, we are of the opinion that there is no need for any further discussion about the fact of non-disclosure amounting to suppression."
On natural justice, the Court observed that although the plea was not raised, the record showed compliance: the 2015 discharge orders were set aside by the High Court, the authorities passed detailed reasoned orders in 2017 after reconsideration per Avtar Singh, and both the Single Judge and Division Bench conducted judicial review. Thus, principles of natural justice were fully complied with and appellants had full opportunity to represent their cases.
The Court distinguished Pawan Kumar (acquittal before attestation form) and Satpal Singh (12 years in service, civil suit for continuity). On parity, it accepted the ASG's submission that 12 of 19 reinstated candidates were acquitted before filling the attestation form (different footing), and the remaining 7 were reinstated under court orders or after case-by-case assessment of triviality - neither applicable here.
The Verdict
The Supreme Court dismissed all civil appeals, upholding the Allahabad High Court's judgment dated 22.09.2021. The Court held that the appellants deliberately suppressed pending criminal cases during verification, falling squarely within Avtar Singh paragraph 38.7, and that the 2017 discharge orders passed after independent reasoned assessment and judicial review were legally sustainable. No order as to costs was made.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Deliberate Suppression Is a Complete Defence for Employer
- Where a candidate deliberately answers "NO" to specific questions about pending criminal cases in the attestation/verification form despite categorical warnings, the employer need not prove anything further - the suppression itself justifies discharge.
- Avtar Singh paragraph 38.7 creates a bright-line rule: deliberate suppression regarding multiple pending cases permits termination without requiring the employer to demonstrate the gravity of each offence.
Post-Hoc Reasoned Review Cures Initial Procedural Defects
- Even if the initial discharge order was summary, a subsequent reasoned reconsideration directed by the court, followed by judicial review at two levels, satisfies natural justice.
- Practitioners challenging discharge orders must show that the reconsideration was a mere rubber-stamp; here, the detailed 2017 orders and concurrent judicial findings foreclosed that argument.
Parity Claims Require Identical Factual Footing
- Reinstatement of other candidates does not create a right to parity unless the factual matrix is identical: acquittal before filling the attestation form, triviality of charges, or court-directed reinstatement.
- The burden is on the claimant to demonstrate factual congruence; mere non-disclosure by others is insufficient where their subsequent acquittal or judicial intervention distinguishes their cases.
Probationers Have No Vested Right to Continuity
- Rule 67.2 RPF Rules expressly provides that a direct recruit "till such time he is not formally appointed to the Force, is liable to be discharged at any stage" if deemed fit in the interest of the Force.
- The Court's emphasis on the pre-appointment stage reinforces that probationers in disciplined forces have no legitimate expectation of confirmation where character verification reveals deliberate suppression.
