RPF Rules | Employee Who Suppressed Criminal Case Can Be Discharged At Any Point Of Time : Supreme Court

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 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.”, the Court observed.

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. The Court 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 facts of the present case fall under the instance referred 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.”, the Court observed.

“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.”, holds Avtar Singh (supra).

“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, we are of the opinion that the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have not committed any error in dismissing the Writ Petitions.”, the Court held.

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.

Headnote

Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 — Rules 52 and 67 — Suppression of Criminal Antecedents — Deliberate Concealment in Attestation Form — Termination / Discharge from Service — Parity Claim - Non-disclosure and deliberate suppression of pending criminal cases at the recruitment stage warrants discharge from service - Where candidates for the post of Constable in RPF/RPSF deliberately answered "NO" in the verification/attestation form despite pending criminal cases against them, such deliberate suppression by itself assumes significance - The candidate has no unfettered right to continuity in service when the statutory mandate under Rules 52 and 67 of the RPF Rules, 1987, the Employment Notice, and the Attestation Form clearly provide for discharge/termination on grounds of false declaration or suppression of material information. [Paras 13 – 21]

Application of Principles in Avtar Singh - The case of a candidate who deliberately suppresses pending criminal cases despite having knowledge falls squarely under paragraph 38.7 of Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471, empowering the employer to cancel candidature or terminate service - Subsequent acquittal in the criminal proceedings does not wipe out or condone the initial act of deliberate suppression (suppressio veri or suggestio falsi) committed at the time of submitting the verification form - Candidates who suppressed pending criminal proceedings cannot claim parity with candidates who were acquitted prior to filling up the verification form, nor with those reinstated pursuant to specific High Court directions or after an objective case-by-case evaluation of triviality - Distinction drawn from cases where acquittal occurred prior to filling up the attestation form (Pawan Kumar v. Union of India), or cases involving long service and civil suits for damages (SPO/Constable IRB Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab). [Relied on Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 471; distinguished from Pawan Kumar v. Union of India & Anr., (2023) 12 SCC 317; Paras 19–29]

Cause Title: BAPPA BARAI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (with connected cases)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 826

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

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 Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR