Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of RPF Constables Who Concealed Pending Criminal Cases

A Division Bench led by Justice Narasimha confirms that deliberate suppression of multiple pending criminal cases in a verification form justifies discharge from RPF service.

The Supreme Court on 18 August 2026 dismissed a batch of civil appeals filed by constables of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) and Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) who had been discharged from service for deliberately not disclosing pending criminal cases during the recruitment verification process. The Court, comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, found that the discharge orders were squarely covered by the principles governing deliberate suppression of multiple pending cases under the framework laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India. The ruling settles that acquittal after discharge, parity claims with reinstated candidates, and reliance on unrelated precedents cannot override concurrent findings of concealment by the High Court.

How the Dispute Reached the Supreme Court

The Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, issued an Employment Notice on 23 February 2011 for vacancies in the post of constables in RPF and RPSF. The appellants appeared and qualified in a written examination held on 16 June 2013, cleared the physical and efficiency test, and were included in a select list published on 17 September 2014. They were called for document verification and medical examination between May and June 2014.

It is an admitted fact that none of the appellants disclosed pending criminal cases against them during verification. Allotment letters were issued and the appellants were sent for training. While they were still in training, the authorities discovered the undisclosed criminal cases and issued orders of discharge 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.

The appellants challenged the discharge orders before the Allahabad High Court. Single Judge Benches initially quashed the orders and directed reconsideration in light of Avtar Singh. After fresh consideration, the authorities again discharged each appellant in March, May, and December 2017, this time with detailed, reasoned orders. A second round of writ petitions was dismissed by the Single Judge. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, by its common judgment dated 22 September 2021, upheld those dismissals. The constables then filed the present batch of Special Leave Petitions, in which leave was granted and the matters were taken up as civil appeals.

Arguments Before the Court

Senior Counsel Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, appearing for the appellants, pressed three principal contentions. First, removal solely for suppression without independent, objective evaluation is arbitrary, as Avtar Singh itself requires. Second, 14 out of 17 appellants had been acquitted of all charges even before they were discharged in 2015. Third, the respondent-authorities had reinstated 26 similarly situated candidates who had also not disclosed pending criminal cases, making the non-reinstatement of the appellants arbitrary.

The appellants also relied on Pawan Kumar v. Union of India (2023) 12 SCC 317 and Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2026 INSC 798) to argue that a pending criminal case alone cannot ground a discharge order.

Additional Solicitor General Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, appearing for the Union, countered that the 2017 discharge orders were passed only after an independent assessment directed by the High Court and were fully reasoned. He submitted that the appellants had pending criminal cases at the time of filling the verification form and had not been acquitted then, distinguishing them from the Pawan Kumar scenario. On the parity point, he informed the Court that 12 of the 19 reinstated candidates had been acquitted before filling the Attestation Form, and the remaining 7 were reinstated either on High Court directions or after case-by-case assessment showing triviality — circumstances absent in the appellants' cases.

The Regulatory Framework

The Court set out the rules that govern the field. Rule 52.1 of the RPF Rules, 1987, requires that a recruit's character and antecedents be verified before formal appointment. Rule 52.2 states that a recruit not found suitable after verification shall not be appointed. Rule 67.2 empowers the Principal Chief Security Commissioner to discharge a direct recruit at any stage before formal appointment, for reasons to be recorded in writing, in the interest of the Force.

Clause 9(f) of the Employment Notice dated 23 February 2011 warned that candidates with adverse antecedents may not be appointed, that a false declaration is an offence, and that it would lead to disqualification, a criminal case, and dismissal from service. The Attestation Form itself carried a prominent caution that furnishing false information or suppression of factual information would be a disqualification. Column 12 of the Form specifically asked candidates whether they had ever been arrested or prosecuted. The appellants answered “No” to both questions.

Applying Avtar Singh: Which Category Governs

The Court worked through the categories identified in Avtar Singh to locate where the appellants' cases fell. Those categories distinguish between cases of conviction or acquittal before filling the form (paragraph 38.4), truthful declaration of a concluded case (paragraph 38.5), truthful declaration of a pending case (paragraph 38.6), deliberate suppression of multiple pending cases (paragraph 38.7), ignorance of the pending case (paragraph 38.8), and vagueness in the verification requirement (paragraph 38.10).

The Court held that the appellants' cases fall within paragraph 38.7, which provides that deliberate suppression of multiple pending cases is, by itself, significant, and the employer may cancel candidature or terminate services. The Single Judge and the Division Bench had both recorded findings that the appellants had knowledge of the pending cases and chose not to disclose them, and that no averment of ignorance was made in the pleadings. The Supreme Court found no error in those concurrent findings.

On the question of natural justice, the Court noted that even though the point was not pressed before it, the record showed that the initial discharge orders of 2015 had been set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration. The detailed 2017 orders were passed after that reconsideration, with reasons, in compliance with Avtar Singh. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench then conducted judicial review and upheld the action. The Court held that natural justice was fully complied with and that the appellants had a full opportunity to present their cases.

Distinguishing Pawan Kumar and Satpal Singh

In Pawan Kumar, the FIR was registered on 4 April 2011, but the appellant was acquitted on 12 August 2011 — well before he filled the Attestation Form on 27 May 2014. Because the criminal case was concluded before he filled the form, the non-disclosure could not be treated in the same way as concealment of a still-pending case. The Court held that Pawan Kumar has no application to the present facts, where the criminal cases were pending and undisclosed at the time of verification.

In Satpal Singh (2026 INSC 798), the person was already in service for twelve years as a Special Police Officer and was discharged on 14 January 2003 merely because a criminal case had been instituted against him on 20 July 2001. That civil appeal also arose from a civil suit for declaratory relief of reinstatement and service benefits, with the Court ultimately awarding damages of Rs. 25 lakhs. The Court found that both the fact of existing service and the nature of the proceedings distinguished Satpal Singh from the present cases, where the appellants were recruits who had not yet been formally appointed.

The Parity Claim

The appellants placed reliance on 26 reinstated candidates who, they submitted, were similarly placed. The ASG, after taking instructions, informed the Court that 19 candidates were in fact reinstated. Of those, 12 had been acquitted of their criminal cases even before filling the Attestation Form and so stood on a materially different footing. The remaining 7 had been reinstated either pursuant to High Court directions or after the authorities found the allegations to be trivial on a case-by-case basis.

The Court accepted this distinction. The appellants had signed the verification form suppressing pending criminal cases, and the concurrent findings of the High Court against them remained intact. There was, accordingly, no valid basis for a discrimination or parity claim.

Outcome

The Supreme Court dismissed all civil appeals arising from the Special Leave Petitions, finding no error in the conclusions of either the Single Judge or the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The Court recorded that the judgments are in consonance with the principles in Avtar Singh. There was no order as to costs.