New Delhi: The Supreme Court has upheld the discharge from service of a batch of Railway Protection Force (RPF) and Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) constables for deliberately suppressing pendency of criminal cases against them in the verification form, holding that their conduct fell squarely within the category of deliberate suppression identified in Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe was hearing a batch of civil appeals against a common judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 22.09.2021, which had dismissed writ appeals and upheld the discharge of the appellants from the post of constable in the RPF and RPSF.
The appellants had qualified in the written examination and physical tests pursuant to an employment notice dated 23.02.2011 and were sent for training after document verification and medical examination in 2014. It was during training that the authorities discovered that the appellants had pending criminal cases against them at the time of verification, which none of them had disclosed. The authorities accordingly issued orders discharging the appellants between June and October 2015, invoking Rules 52 and 67 of the RPF Rules, 1987, Clause 9(f) of the employment notice, and paragraph 3 of the Attestation Form.
On writ petitions filed by the appellants, the Single Judge had initially quashed the discharge orders and directed reconsideration in light of Avtar Singh. Pursuant to this direction, the authorities passed fresh, reasoned orders in 2017 once again discharging the appellants on the ground of suppression. These fresh orders were upheld by the Single Judge and subsequently by the Division Bench, giving rise to the present appeals.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that removal from service for mere suppression, without independent and objective evaluation, was arbitrary, relying on Avtar Singh, Pawan Kumar v. Union of India and SPO/Constable IRB Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. They also pointed out that 14 of the 17 appellants had since been acquitted, and that several similarly placed candidates who had suppressed criminal antecedents had been reinstated, making their own non-reinstatement discriminatory. The Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Union, submitted that the appellants' cases had already been reconsidered in light of Avtar Singh, that suppression of material information had a direct bearing on character and fitness for service, and that the candidates who were reinstated stood on a different footing, either having been acquitted before filling the Attestation Form or reinstated pursuant to specific High Court directions.
Examining Rules 52 and 67 of the RPF Rules, 1987 together with Clause 9(f) of the employment notice and the Attestation Form, the Court held that these provisions made it clear that a candidate would be liable to be discharged for non-disclosure of pending criminal cases. Applying paragraph 38.7 of Avtar Singh, which permits an employer to terminate service where there has been deliberate suppression of multiple pending cases, the Court held that the appellants' case fell within this category, noting that there was no averment in the pleadings that the appellants were unaware of the pending cases against them. The Court observed:
“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.”
Distinguishing Pawan Kumar, the Court noted that the appellant in that case had been acquitted before filling the Attestation Form, unlike the present appellants, none of whom had been acquitted at the time of verification. Satpal Singh was also held inapplicable, since it concerned an officer already in service for twelve years whose discharge arose from a civil suit for reinstatement and damages, unlike the present case of candidates discharged before confirmation. On the plea of discrimination, the Court accepted the ASG's submission that the reinstated candidates were acquitted before filling the Attestation Form or were reinstated pursuant to specific High Court orders, and held that the appellants could not claim parity with them.
Holding that the principles of natural justice had been fully complied with, since the appellants' cases had already been reconsidered afresh in 2017 pursuant to the earlier round of litigation, the Court found no error in the concurrent findings of the Single Judge and the Division Bench and dismissed the civil appeals, with no order as to costs.
Appearances:
For the Appellants: Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Senior Advocate; Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Senior Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General.
Case Title: Bappa Barai vs. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal (@ SLP(C) No. 12389 of 2022) with connected appeals
