2026 INSC 882 1

REPORTABLE

I

N THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 12389 OF 2022

BAPPA BARAI ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 12105 OF 2022

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 11812 OF 2022

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 14889 OF 2022

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 12227 OF 2022

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 12132 OF 2022

2

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 14916 OF 2022

With

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026

ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS. 11754- 11756 OF 2022

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 12392 OF 2022

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 12 430 OF 2022

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 12 434 OF 2022

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 1 1946 OF 2022

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 1 4890 OF 2022

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 11820 OF 2022

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 14532 OF 2022

3

J U D G M E N T

1. Leave granted.

2. These civil appeals are against the common judgment of the

Division Bench of Allahabad High Court dated 22.09.202 1 upholding

certain decisions of the Single Judge , again dismissing the writ

petitions filed by the appellants against the order of discharge from

service for non- disclosure of criminal antecedents at the recruitment

process to the post of constables in Railway Protection Force [“RPF”]

and Railway Protection Special Force [“RPSF”].

1

3. The Chief Security Commissioner, RPF issued an Employment

Notice on 23.02.2011 for filling up vacancies in the post of constables

in RPF and RPSF. The appellants appeared and qualified in the

written examination dated 16.06.2013 and also cleared the physical

and efficiency test, resulting in their names being published in the

select list dated 17.09.2014. The appellants were called for

document verification and medical examination between May to June

of 2014.

1

Special Appe al Nos. 153 of 2019, 259 of 2019, 256 of 2019, 262 of 2019, 260 of 2019, 261 of 2019,

251 of 2019, 250 of 2019, 249 of 2019, 255 of 2019, 254 of 2019, 253 of 2019, 252 of 2019, 199 of

2019, 271 of 2019, 265 of 2019 and 440 of 2019 in the High Court of Allahabad.

4

4. It is an admitted fact that none of the appellants have disclosed

during verification that there were pending criminal cases against

them. It is also an admitted fact that pursuant to the verification and

medical examination, the respondent-authorities proceeded to issue

allotment letters and the appellants were sent for training.

5. At the time when the appellants were undergoing training, the

respondent-authorities came to know about the subsisting criminal

cases against them and also realised that such facts were

suppressed and deliberately not mentioned during the verification

process. The Authorities then proceeded to issue orders of discharge

from service to each of the appellants between June to October 2015.

This action is based on the mandate of Rules 52 and 67 of the RPF

Rules, 1987, Clause 9(f) of the Employment Notice dated 23.02.2011,

as also p aragraph 3 of the Attestation Form.

6. Aggrieved by the orders of discharge, the appellants

approached the Allahabad High Court by filing writ petitions under

Article 226 of the Constitution. These writ petitions were initially heard

and decided by Single Judge Benches, which quashed the orders of

discharge and directed the authorities to reconsider the appellants’

5

cases as per the principle laid down by this Court in Avtar Singh v.

Union of India & Ors.

2

7. Pursuant to the directions of the Single Judges, the authorities

considered the matter and passed detailed orders in the months of

March, May and December of 2017 discharging each of the

appellants on the ground of suppression and non- disclosure of

criminal antecedents.

8. As against the orders passed by the respondent -authorities,

appellants again approached the High Court by filing writ petitions

which were heard independently and dismissed by the Single Judge.

Questioning the legality and validity of the orders passed by the

Single Judge, the appellants filed writ appeals and the Division

Bench by the order impugned before us, dismissed all the writ

appeals upholding the decisions of the Single Judge and thereby

confirming the orders of discharge from service.

9. Following the mandate of the rule that governs the subject and

the principles laid down by this Court in Avtar Singh (supra), the

2

(2016) 8 SCC 471.

6

Division Bench proceeded to dismiss the writ appeals by adopting

the reasons that;

(i) None of the principles of Avtar Singh (supra) will apply to

the appellants as the appellants had knowledge regarding

the pending criminal cases against them and chose not to

disclose them at the time of verification.

(ii) The appellants did not make a case of any special

circumstances because of which they could not disclose

these pending criminal antecedents.

(iii) Further, no specific averments were made in the

pleadings before the Court about factors such as triviality

of the offence, lack of knowledge of the pending criminal

case and the criteria on the basis of which discharge was

ordered were vague.

10. Aggrieved by the common judgment of the Division Bench, the

appellants herein have filed the present batch of Civil Appeals .

11. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli,

learned Senior Counsels appearing for the appellants contended the

following:

7

a) The High Court erred in not setting aside the Discharge

Orders issued in the year 2017 removing the a ppellants

from service solely on the ground that there was

concealment regarding their prior criminal antecedents

despite the law laid down in Avtar Singh (supra), which

categorically states that removal of a person from service

for mere suppression of material information without any

independent and objective evaluation is arbitrary. The

same principle was reiterated by this Court in Pawan

Kumar v. Union of India

3

, whereby this Court quashed a

discharge order of a RPF/ RPSF constable for merely not

disclosing a criminal case. Further reliance was also

placed on the recent judgment in SPO/Constable IRB

Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

4

whereby this Court

held that discharge cannot be ordered solely on the

ground of a pending criminal case.

b) All the appellants who applied for the post of Constable

have been acquitted of all charges with 14 out of 17 of

3

(2023) 12 SCC 317, para 15.

4

2026 INSC 798.

8

them being acquitted before they were discharged by the

respondent-authorities.

c) Appellants have placed on record that at least 26 similarly

situated candidates with prior criminal antecedents, who

were initially discharged from service on the ground of

non-disclosure have been reinstated. Out of these 2 6, 11

who were acquitted before fil ling the attestation form and

15 who were acquitted after filling the attestation form

have been reinstated by the respondent-authorities.

Therefore, based on parity, non- reinstatement of the

appellants would be arbitrary and contrary to law.

12. Per contra, Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Learned Additional Solicitor

General appearing for the r espondents, submitted the following:

a) The appellants’ cases, on the direction of the Allahabad

High Court, w ere re-examined in the light of the principles

laid down by this Court in Avtar Singh (supra) by the

respondents. It was only after an independent

assessment, followed by reasoned discharge orders, that

they were declared not suitable for the post of Co nstable

in the RPSF & RPF in 2017.

9

b) It is settled law that suppression of material information

and making a false statement in the V erification Form

relating to criminal antecedents has a clear bearing on the

character of the employee. Moreover, a person

suppressing material information cannot claim an

unfettered right to continuity in service.

c) The reliance on Pawan Kumar (supra) by the appellants

is incorrect as in that case, the criminal case registered

against the appellant therein and his acquittal from the

same happened before he filled the attestation/verification

form. In the present case, all appellants had prior criminal

antecedents before filling of the attestation form and had

not been acquitted at the time when they filled the

verification form.

d) The appellants cannot claim parity with the persons

reinstated as the decisions are based on a case-by-case

study. They have been reinstated on the grounds that they

were acquitted before filling up the Attestation Form or

were found suitable for service pursuant to re-

consideration as per the directions of various High Courts.

10

13. Before we proceed to consider the submissions, it is necessary

to refer to the relevant rules and regulations that govern recruitment

and appointment to this post. The provisions that we are going to

refer to, clearly lay down that when recruitment commences and

before a candidate is selected to any post under RPF Rules and is

given an order of employment, there is a requirement of self-

verification and the consequence of suppression is clearly spelt out.

14. 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.

15. RPF Rules 1987 framed under the Railway Protection Force

Act 1957, govern the subject of these posts. Rules 52 and 67, which

are necessary for our consideration, are as follows;

“52. Verification

52.1. As soon as a recruit is selected but before he is formally

appointed to the Force, his character and antecedents shall be

got verified in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the

Central Government from time to time.

52.2. Where after verification, a recruit is not found suitable for

the Force, he shall not be appointed as a member of the Force.”

11

“67. Disciplinary Control

67.1 The staff and trainees at any training institution of the

Force, shall, so long as they are at such institution or

undergoing practical training at some other place, be under the

disciplinary control of the Principal of that training institution.

67.2 A direct recruit selected for being appointed as enrolled member, till such time he is not formally appointed to the Force,

is liable to be discharged at any stage if the [Principal Chief

Security Commissioner] for reasons to be recorded in writing,

deems it fit so to do in the interest of the Force.”

(emphasis supplied)

16. Further, the Employment Notice No. 1/2011 dated 23.02.2011

contains important clauses. Clause 9(f) is of some importance;

“9(f) Candidates found to be having adverse report on their antecedents and character may not be appointed in RPF

including RPSF. False Declaration is an offence under the law

and will lead to disqualification of the applicant, institution of

criminal case and also dismissal from service, if appointed.

Hence, applicants are advised to be careful while filling in the

application.”

17. Paragraphs 1, 3 as also Clauses (a) and (b) of Column No.12

of the Attestation Form that are issued at the time of verification and

medical examination are also relevant;

“ATTESTATION FORM

1. THE FURNISHING OF FALSE INFORMATION OR

SUPPRESSION OF ANY FACTUAL INFORMATION IN THE

ATTESTATION FORM WOULD BE A DISQUALIFICATION,

AND IS LIKELY TO RENDER THE CANDIDATE UNFIT FOR

EMPLOYMENT UNDER THE GOVT.

3. IF THE FACT THAT FALSE INFORMATION HAS BEEN

FURNISHED OR THAT THERE HAS BEEN SUP PRESSION

OF ANY FACTUAL INFORMATION IN THE ATTESTATION

12

FORM COMES TO NOTICE AT ANY TIME DURING THE

SERVICE OF A PERSON, HIS SERVICES WOULD BE

LIABLE TO BE TERMINATED.

…….

12(a): Have you ever been arrested? Yes/No _/

12(b): Have you ever been prosecuted? Yes/No_/”

18. A reading of the Verification required under Rule 52, coupled

with the Disciplinary Control that would be exercised under Rule 67,

followed by the Declaration in clause 9(f) of the Employment Notice

and the Attestation Form makes it very clear that the candidate will

be discharged for non- disclosure of information about the pending

criminal cases. This is the mandate of law ( Rule) that governs the

recruitment process.

19. The mandate of law must also be understood in the context of

the following principles formulated by this Court in Avtar Singh

(supra);

“38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain

and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid

discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:

38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to

conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case,

whether before or after entering into service must be true and

there should be no suppression or false mention of required

information.

38.2. While passing order of termination of services or

cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the

13

employer may take notice of special circumstances of the

case, if any, while giving such information.

38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the

government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the

employee, at the time of taking the decision.

38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of

involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal

had already been recorded before filling of the

application/verification form and such fact later comes to

knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses

appropriate to the case may be adopted:

38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been

recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a

petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an

incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its

discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false

information by condoning the lapse.

38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is

not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or

terminate services of the employee.

38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case

involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature,

on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or

benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer

may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents,

and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of

the employee.

38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration

truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has

the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled

to appoint the candidate.

38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in

character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal

case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of

the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject

to decision of such case.

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.

14

38.8 If criminal case was pending but not known to the

candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have

adverse impact and the appointing authority would take

decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.

38.9 In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding

departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing

order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of

suppression or submitting false information in verification

form.

38.10. For determining suppression or false information

attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague.

Only such information which was required to be specifically

mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for

but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same

can be considered in an objective manner while addressing

the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot

be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false

information as to a fact which was not even asked for.

38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or

suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to

him.”

20. At the outset, we may point out that while Clauses (a) and (b)

of Column No. 12 of the Attestation Form categorically required

disclosure of pending criminal cases, if any, appellants have chosen

to declare “NO”. 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. It is in this very

15

context that the Division Bench has recorded “they were guilty of

suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, i.e., had knowledge of suppression

of specific information sought in the attestation/verification form,

which they had deliberately omitted to mention.” We will now examine

the legality and validity of the order of discharge in the context of the

principles laid down by this Court in Avatar Singh (supra). While

analysing the information of the candidate about either its

suppression or its disclosure in the context of the due consideration

that it should receive, the High Court identified different instances,

such as cases where; (i) conviction/acquittal of the candidate

occurred before filling of the verification (para 38.4), (ii) candidate

making truthful declaration of the concluded criminal case (para 38.5),

(iii) truthful declaration by the candidate regarding pendency of a

criminal case (para 38.6), (iv) cases where the candidate indulged in

deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases

(para 38.7), (v) the candidate is ignorant of pending criminal cases

(para 38.8), and (vi) where the candidate expresses uncertainty and

vagueness in the requirement of verification (para 38.10)

21. 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

16

have chosen not to indicate pendency of the criminal cases in the

verification form. Avtar Singh (supra) holds;

“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.”

22. 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.

23. Further, though the plea relating to the violation of the principle

of natural justice was not taken by the appellants before this Court, it

is seen from the record that they were all discharged from service

between June to October 2015 but in the first round of litigation, the

High Court set aside the said orders and directed the authorities to

reconsider the decision as per the principles laid down in Avatar

Singh (supra). Following the said direction , detailed orders were

passed in the year 2017 with reasons for discharge recorded and in

compliance with the principles laid down in Avatar Singh (supra). The

17

discharge orders of 2017 are the subject matter of the present

litigation, whereunder the Single Judge and the Division Bench

conducted the necessary judicial review and upheld the executive

action. In this background, we have no hesitation in holding that the

principles of natural justice are fully complied with and that the

appellants had full opportunity to represent their cases.

24. The learned counsels have also relied on the decision of this

Court in Pawan Kumar (supra) . Facts of the said case would reveal

that though the FIR was filed against the appellant therein on

04.04.2011, about which he had not made a fair disclosure in the

Attestation Form fill ed on 27.05.2014, he was acquitted on

12.08.2011 itself, which was much before filling of the Attestation

Form. We are of the opinion that the decision of Pawan Kumar (supra)

has no application to the facts of the present case.

25. The learned counsels for the appellants have also relied on

Satpal Singh (supra) to advance a submission that mere pendency

of a criminal case cannot be a ground to terminate a candidate from

service. The facts of that case would show that the appellant therein

was already in service for twelve years as Special Police Officer from

1991 and was discharged on 14.01.2003 for merely a case pending

18

against him instituted on 20.07.2001 in which he was ultimately

convicted. Moreover, the Civil Appeal therein arose from a civil suit

seeking a declaratory relief of reinstatement along with service

benefits, with this Court ultimately granting him damages to the tune

of Rs. 25 Lakhs. Given both these counts that the appellant therein

was already in service and that the civil appeal arose out of a suit

seeking continuity in service and service benefits, the same would

not be applicable to the present case of the appellants.

26. The learned counsels for the appellants have also raised an

alternative plea based on discrimination. They would submit that the

respondent-authorities have in fact reinstated candidates who were

similarly placed as that of the appellants, that is, these reinstated

candidates also did not disclose pending criminal cases in the

verification form.

27. We called upon the learned Additional Solicitor General to take

instructions and inform us about reinstatement of similarly placed

candidates. The ASG has informed us that 19 candidates were in fact

reinstated. He would submit that out of the 19 candidates, 12

candida tes were reinstated as they were acquitted of the criminal

cases even before filling the Attestation Form. We are of the opinion

19

that these 12 candidates stand on a different footing, and the

appellants cannot claim parity with them.

28. As regards the remaining 7 candidates who were reinstated,

the learned ASG would submit that there were orders of the High

Courts directing reinstatement. He would further submit that in just

few other cases, the authorities examined the claims of candidates

on a case- to-case basis and having found that the allegations were

trivial, they were taken back into service. In so far as the appellants

are concerned, no such similarity existed, they signed the verification

suppressing pending criminal cases and that there were concurrent

findings of the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High

Court dismissing the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants. It is

therefore submitted that the appellants can neither allege

discrimination nor seek parity.

29. Having considered the claims of the appellants from all

perspectives, we are of the opinion that there is no error in the

conclusions of either the Single Judge or the Division Bench. The

judgments are also in consonance with the principles laid down in

Avtar Singh.

20

30. For the reasons stated above, we see no reason to interfere

with the judgment and order passed by the High Court. The Civil

Appeals are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to

costs.

………………………………....J.

[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]

………………………………....J.

[ALOK ARADHE]

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 18, 2026.