Supreme Court Upholds Discharge Of RPF Personnel Who Hid Pending Criminal Cases During Recruitment

New Delhi, August 19, 2026: The Supreme Court has upheld the discharge of a group of Railway Protection Force (RPF) and Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) constables who failed to disclose pending criminal cases during recruitment, holding that an employee who suppresses such information can be discharged at any point.

Visit casino-promo.biz for more information.

A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said deliberate suppression of material information about criminal antecedents has a direct bearing on an employee's character and can justify termination.

The ruling underlines the importance the recruitment process places on complete and truthful disclosure, particularly for personnel joining a security force, Live Law reports.

Disclosure Is Not Optional

The Supreme Court noted that under the RPF Rules, a candidate taking part in the selection process must provide complete information, including details of any pending criminal case.

"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," the Court observed.

The appellants had applied for recruitment as constables in the RPF and RPSF. They cleared the written examination, physical and efficiency tests and were included in the select list. However, during document verification and medical examination, they did not disclose the criminal cases pending against them.

The authorities discovered the pending criminal proceedings while the appellants were undergoing training. After finding that the cases had been deliberately suppressed, the authorities discharged them between June and October 2015.

High Court Order Stands

The Allahabad High Court upheld their discharge, following which the candidates approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court judgment, noting that the appellants were aware of the Railway Protection Force Rules governing recruitment.

The rules expressly provided for disqualification for suppression of factual information, but the appellants nevertheless proceeded with document verification and medical examination without disclosing the pending cases.

The Court relied on its decision in Avtar Singh v Union of India & Ors (2016), which dealt with deliberate suppression of multiple pending criminal cases.

"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 have chosen not to indicate pendency of the criminal cases in the verification form," the Court observed.

Referring to Avtar Singh, the Court noted that deliberate suppression of multiple pending cases is significant in itself and an employer may cancel a candidate's candidature or terminate their service. The earlier ruling had also held that appointing a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending might not be proper.

No Plea Of Ignorance

The Supreme Court also pointed out that both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court had found that the appellants had not pleaded ignorance about the pending criminal cases.

"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," the Court held.

The finding makes the distinction clear: the case was not merely about the existence of criminal proceedings but also about the candidates' failure to disclose information they were required to provide.

Later Acquittal Does Not Help

The Bench rejected the argument that the subsequent acquittal of several appellants entitled them to reinstatement.

It distinguished the case from the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Pawan Kumar v Union of India, noting that in Pawan Kumar, the acquittal had taken place before the candidate filled out the attestation form.

Also Watch:

Supreme Court Directs Centre To File Affidavit On NEET-UG Reforms Within 3 Weeks; Centre Says ‘Foolproof System’ In Place

The Court also held that Spo/Constable Irb Satpal Singh vs State Of Punjab was distinguishable because the employee in that case had already served for 12 years.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, leaving the discharge of the RPF and RPSF personnel undisturbed.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/

Read full story at source