 and Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) Constables.webp)
The Supreme Court has dismissed a batch of appeals filed by candidates who were discharged from service as Railway Protection Force (RPF) and Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) constables after authorities found that they had not disclosed pending criminal cases during the recruitment process.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held that the candidates were required to disclose pending criminal cases in their verification forms and that the authorities were justified in considering the non-disclosure while deciding their suitability for service.
Background of the Case
The batch arose from a common judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated September 22, 2021, which had upheld orders discharging the appellants from RPF and RPSF service. The candidates had applied for constable posts following an employment notice issued in February 2011. They cleared the written examination, physical and efficiency tests and were included in the select list.
The candidates were subsequently sent for training. During this period, the authorities came to know about criminal cases pending against them and found that these cases had not been disclosed during verification. Discharge orders were then issued between June and October 2015 under the applicable RPF Rules, the recruitment notice and the attestation form.
The Allahabad High Court had initially directed reconsideration of their cases in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Avtar Singh v. Union of India. However, after reconsideration, the authorities again discharged the candidates in 2017, citing suppression and non-disclosure of criminal antecedents. The High Court later upheld those decisions.
Supreme Court's Observation
The Supreme Court examined the RPF Rules, the recruitment notice and the attestation form. It noted that Rule 52 required verification of a recruit's character and antecedents before formal appointment, while Rule 67 permitted discharge during training in specified circumstances.
The Court also noted that the attestation form specifically required candidates to disclose whether they had ever been arrested or prosecuted. The form warned that suppression of factual information could affect employment.
Referring to Avtar Singh, the Bench stressed that information regarding criminal cases must be truthful and that employers are entitled to consider the circumstances surrounding suppression while making a decision on suitability.
In the present case, the Court found that the candidates had answered "No" despite the form specifically requiring disclosure of pending criminal cases. The Court therefore found no need for further examination of whether the non-disclosure amounted to suppression.
The Bench further held that the cases fell within the principle concerning deliberate suppression of multiple pending criminal cases recognised in Avtar Singh. It also found that the candidates had not pleaded that they were unaware of the pending cases.
Court Rejects Parity Argument
The appellants also argued that other candidates with criminal antecedents had been reinstated. The Supreme Court, however, found that the circumstances were not comparable.
The Court noted that 12 of the reinstated candidates had been acquitted before filling the attestation form, placing them on a different footing. In other cases, reinstatement followed High Court directions or case-by-case consideration where the allegations were found to be trivial.
Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the Allahabad High Court had committed no error in upholding the discharge orders and that its decision was consistent with the principles laid down in Avtar Singh.
The Bench accordingly refused to interfere with the High Court's judgment and dismissed the civil appeals, with no order as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Bappa Barai v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters
Judges: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe.
Decision Date: August 18, 2026.
 Act (UAPA)-300x169.webp)
