Supreme Court: Employee Who Suppressed Criminal Case Can Be Discharged At Any Time

The core issue is whether the discharge orders are valid under the RPF Rules and the principles laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India.

Who it concerns: Appellants: Bappa Barai and others (17 candidates); Respondents: Union of India and others; Bench: Not stated in the provided text.

What the court decided

• The Court noted that the appellants admitted to suppressing pending criminal cases during verification.
• The Court cited RPF Rules 52 and 67, Clause 9(f) of the Employment Notice, and the Attestation Form, which mandate that non-disclosure of criminal antecedents leads to discharge at any point in time.
• The Court referenced the principles from Avtar Singh v. Union of India, noting that while suppression is a ground for termination, the employer must consider special circumstances and applicable rules.
• The provided text ends before the final operative order or judgment conclusion is stated.

Also in the document

• The text is truncated and does not contain the final decision or specific relief granted/denied by the Supreme Court in this instance.
• The Court emphasized that the mandate of the RPF Rules is that a candidate is liable to be discharged for non-disclosure of information about pending criminal cases.
• The appellants argued that 14 out of 17 were acquitted before discharge and that 26 similarly situated candidates were reinstated, while the respondents argued that the appellants had not been acquitted at the time of filling the verification form.