The Calcutta High Court has upheld the termination of a probationary CISF constable after finding that he failed to disclose his involvement in pending criminal cases while filling out his attestation form. Setting aside an earlier Single Judge's order, the Division Bench ruled that suppression of such material information entitled the employer to terminate the employee under the CISF Rules without holding a departmental inquiry.
Background of the Case
The appeal arose from a judgment of a Single Judge that had quashed the constable's termination order dated October 18, 2016, and the appellate order affirming it. The employee had been selected through a Staff Selection Commission recruitment process conducted in 2012-13 and joined the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in September 2014 on probation.
During verification of his attestation form, the authorities found that he had answered "No" to the question asking whether any criminal case was pending against him. Based on this alleged suppression, the CISF terminated his services under Rules 25(2) and 26(4) of the CISF Rules, 2001, after paying one month's salary in lieu of notice.
Union of India’s Stand
The Union of India argued that the attestation form clearly warned candidates that furnishing false information or suppressing material facts could lead to termination at any stage of service. It also relied on Supreme Court decisions holding that suppression of criminal antecedents affecting suitability for public service is sufficient ground to terminate a probationary employee without conducting a formal inquiry.
Court's Observation
The Division Bench comprising Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Prasenjit Biswas noted that the employee himself had admitted, in his appeal before the departmental authorities, that he had been implicated in the criminal cases, though he claimed he was falsely named under a different name and was later acquitted.
Rejecting the reasoning adopted by the Single Judge, the Bench observed that the employee's own representation established his involvement in the criminal proceedings.
The Bench observed,
“Since the petitioner himself stated about his implication in the criminal cases, but by another name, and also about his acquittal... there was no scope for concluding that petitioner was not an accused in the criminal case.”
The Court further held that once the employee admitted his implication in the criminal cases, there was no burden on the Union of India to independently establish his identity as an accused.
It added,
“We find non-mentioning of the fact of pendency of these criminal cases by the petitioner to be an act of suppression inviting the consequence in terms of the ‘warning’ stated on the Attestation Form.”
Decision
Holding that the employee had suppressed material information regarding pending criminal cases, the Division Bench ruled that the CISF was justified in terminating his probationary service under the applicable rules.
The Court set aside the Single Judge's judgment and allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India, restoring the termination order.
Case Details
Case Title: Union of India & Others v. Gujjudi Varaprasad
Case Number: F.M.A. 697 of 2022
Judge: Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Prasenjit Biswas
Decision Date: 29 June 2026
