Silence About Pending Cases Costs RPF Recruits Their Jobs: Supreme Court Upholds Discharges

Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has upheld the discharge of a batch of Railway Protection Force constable trainees who did not disclose criminal cases pending against them when they filled their attestation forms. Applying Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 07 SC CK 0097, it held that deliberate suppression of pending cases justified discharge, that later acquittals did not help, and that the appellants could not claim parity with reinstated candidates.

The appellants applied under an RPF/RPSF employment notice of February 2011, cleared the tests, and were selected. During document verification none disclosed pending criminal cases. In 2015, while they were in training, the authorities learned of the cases and discharged them. The Allahabad High Court set aside those discharges and directed reconsideration under Avtar Singh.

In 2017 fresh reasoned orders again discharged them for suppression of criminal antecedents. A Single Judge dismissed their writ petitions and a Division Bench dismissed the appeals on 22 September 2021, holding that they knew of the cases, chose not to disclose them and pleaded no special circumstances.

The Key Question Before the Court

Can candidates who hid pending criminal cases in their attestation forms keep their appointments if they are later acquitted, or if others in a similar position were reinstated?

Disclosure Duty and Parity

The Court read Rules 52 and 67 of the RPF Rules, 1987, clause 9(f) of the employment notice and the attestation form, all requiring disclosure, and held that non-disclosure of pending cases leads to discharge. Applying paragraph 38.7 of Avtar Singh on deliberate suppression where cases are pending, it found the High Court's view correct and natural justice “fully complied with” since the 2017 orders were reasoned and followed the remand. It observed that “Good conduct and strength of character always lie in the choices that one makes.”

Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, (2022) 05 SC CK 0004 was distinguished because the acquittal there came before the attestation form was filled, and IRB Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2026 INSC 798) because that employee had served for twelve years. As to reinstated candidates, the Court accepted that they were differently placed and held that parity could not be claimed.

What the Court Actually Held

• The civil appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
• Non-disclosure of pending criminal cases in the attestation form justified discharge.
• Acquittal after the form was filled did not cure the suppression.
• Appellants could not claim parity with differently placed reinstated candidates.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It reinforces candour in verification forms for uniformed services.
• It applies Avtar Singh to suppression of pending (not concluded) cases.
• It narrows the reach of Pawan Kumar and Satpal Singh.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Candidates

• Disclose every pending case in attestation forms, however minor.
• Plead any lack of knowledge specifically if that is the defence.

For Employers

• Pass reasoned orders after considering each case under Avtar Singh.
• Record why reinstated candidates are differently placed.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

The judgment records acquittals in many cases, but they came after the forms were filled.

There the acquittal preceded the attestation form.

The Court applied Avtar Singh's case-by-case approach and found deliberate suppression here.

Conclusion

Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →