/2022 INSC 0344/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).     3574         OF 2022
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6009 of 2016)
PAWAN KUMAR  APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.  RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal is directed against  the judgment and  order
passed by  the Division Bench of the  High  Court of Delhi dated 17 th
November,   2015,   whereby   the   High   Court   upheld   the   order   of
discharge dated 24 th
 April, 2015, taking recourse to clause 9(f) of the
employment   notice   no.1/2011   dated   27 th
  February,   2011   read   with
Rule   67.2   of   Railway   Protection   Force   Rules,   1987   (hereinafter
referred to as “the RPF Rules 1987”).
1

3. The   brief   facts   of   the   case   culled   out   from   the   record   are   that
the   employment   notice   for   appointment   to   the   post   of   Constable   in
the Railway Protection Force (RPF), including Railway Police Special
Force   (RPSF)   came   to   be   published   on   27 th
  February,   2011.     The
appellant being eligible submitted application form and participated
in the selection process and after qualifying the written examination
held on 23 rd
 June, 2013 followed with physical efficiency test held on
12 th
  June,   2014   and   after   his   final   selection   was   sent   for   training.
While   the   appellant   was   undergoing   training,   he   came   to   be
discharged by an order dated 24 th
 April, 2015 invoking clause 9(f) of
the   employment   notice   no.1/2011   dated   27 th
  February,   2011   and
Rule 67.2 of the RPF Rules 1987.   
4. That became the subject matter of challenge at the instance of
the appellant by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi.
It   came   on   record   that   at   one   stage   FIR   no.75   under   Sections
148/149/323/506/356 IPC was registered against him on 4 th
  April,
2011   and   after   charge­sheet   came   to   be   filed   on   13 th
  April,   2011,
charge   was   framed   on   7 th
  July,   2011.       As   it   was   a   false   case
registered   against   him,   the   appellant   was   honourably   acquitted   by
2

the   competent   Court   of   jurisdiction   by   the   judgment   dated   12 th
August,   2011   and   this   fact,   according   to   the   respondent,   was   not
disclosed   by   him   when   he   filled   the   attestation   form   on   27 th
  May,
2014  that   he   was   prosecuted  at   one   stage   and   this   being   a   case   of
suppression of information/false declaration in the verification form,
the   High   Court   dismissed   the   writ   petition   under   judgment
impugned   dated   17 th
  November,   2015   and   that   became   the   subject
matter of challenge in appeal before this Court.
5. We   have   heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and   with   their
assistance perused the material available on record.
6.  The   process   of   selection   was   initiated   by   the   respondents
pursuant to the employment notice no.1/2011 dated 27 th
  February,
2011 for filling up the post of Constable in RPF/RPSF.  Clause 9(f) of
the   RPF   Rules   1987,   which   is   relevant   for   the   present   purpose   is
reproduced hereunder:
“ 9(f) Candidates   found   to   be   having   adverse   report   on   their
antecedents   and   character   may   not   be   appointed   in   RPF   including
RPSF.   False declaration is an offence under the law and will lead to
disqualification of the applicant, institution of criminal case and also
dismissal from service, if appointed.  Hence, applicants are advised to
be careful while filling in the application.”  
3

7. Indisputedly,  on  the date  when  the  application  form   was filled
by the appellant pursuant to employment notice no.1/2011, no such
criminal case was either instituted or pending against him and what
was   disclosed   by   him   at   the   time   of   filling   his   application   form
pursuant   to   employment   notice   no.1/2011,   there   was   no
suppression   of   relevant   information   or   submission   of   false
declaration   at   that   stage.     It   was   unfortunate   that   a   false   criminal
case of trivial nature came to be registered against him on 4 th
  April,
2011  and   since  it  has  no  legs  to   stand   as  much  before  the   charge­
sheet could be filed, the de facto complainant submitted his affidavit
on 19 th
  April, 2011 that no such alleged incident  on 4 th
  April, 2011
had taken place and the bag was found beneath the driver seat itself
and   under   misconception,   a   complaint   was   lodged   by   him.     The
prosecution   witness   has   not   supported   case   of   the   prosecution
during   the   course   of   trial   and   for   that   reason   the   appellant   was
honourably   acquitted   by   the   trial   Court   by   judgment   dated   12 th
August, 2011.  
8. Unfortunately, when the appellant filled the attestation form at
a later stage on 27 th
 May, 2014, certain formation were desired to be
4

disclosed   by   him   and   in   clause   12(a)   and   12(b)   of   the   verification
form, according to the respondent, as the appellant mentioned “No”,
when   he   was   asked   to   disclose   as   to   whether   he   has   ever   been
arrested or has been prosecuted, in answer to clauses 12(a) and (b),
which   was   considered   to   be   a   suppression   of   relevant
information/submission   of   false   declaration   in   the   verification   form
as   regards   to   his   criminal   antecedents.     Proceeding   on   the   said
premise,   the   order   of   discharge   came   to   be   passed   on   24th   April,
2015.     It   will   be   relevant   to   quote   the   extract   of   the   information
relevant for the purpose :
“Attestation Form
NOTE   :   THIS   ATTESTATION   FORM   WILL   BE   UTILISED   ONLY
UPON   FINAL   CONSIDERATION   AND   ACCEPTANCE   OF
THE CANDIDATURE AFTER VIVA­VOCE  AS SELECTED
CANDIDATE   SUBJECT   TO   FULFILMENT   OF   OTHER
PRE CONDITIONS.
WARNING:   THE   FURNISHING   OF   FALSE   INFORMATION   OR
SUPPRESSION   OF   ANY   FACTUAL   INFORMATION   IN
THE   ATTESTATION   FORM   WOULD   BE   A
DISQUALIFICATION,   AND   IS   LIKELY   TO   RENDER   THE
CANDIDATE   UNFIT   FOR   EMPLOYMENT   UNDER   THE
GOVT.
……………………….
  
12 (a) Have you ever been arrested?    Yes/ No  _/
      (b) Have you ever been prosecuted?    Yes/ No  _/
……………………….”  
5

9. Under the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, at the time of
entry   into   service   a   verification   of   character   and   antecedents   of   the
incumbent   has   to   take  place  according   to   the   procedure   prescribed
by the Central Government from time to time.    Rule 52 of the Rules
1987 is reproduced herein below:
“ Rule 52/VERIFICATION :
52.1 As   soon   as   a   recruit   is   selected   but   before   he   is   formally
appointed   to   the   Force,   his   character   and   antecedents   shall   be   got
verified   in   accordance   with   the   procedure   prescribed   by   the   Central
Government from time to time.
52.2  Where after verification, a recruit is not found suitable for
the Force, he shall not be appointed as a member of the Force.”
10. It may be noticed that while a recruit is selected and before he
is formally  appointed, his character/antecedents have to be verified
and after due verification if the recruit is found suitable for the post,
may be considered for appointment as a member of the force.   What
is required that after the verification of character/antecedents of the
recruit   has   taken   place,   it   presupposes   and   casts   an   obligation   on
the appointing/competent authority to take into consideration as to
whether   the   kind   of   suppression   of   alleged   information/false
6

declaration holds him suitable for appointment to the force, in terms
of Rule 52 of the Rules 1987.   
11. This   cannot   be   disputed   that   the   candidate   who   intends   to
participate   in   the   selection   process   is   always   required   to   furnish
correct information relating to his character and antecedents in the
verification/attestation  form  before  and after  induction  into  service.
It   is   also   equally   true   that   the   person   who   has   suppressed   the
material   information   or   has   made   false   declaration   indeed   has   no
unfettered right of seeking appointment or continuity in service, but
at least has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to
be judiciously exercised by the competent authority in a reasonable
manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts of the case on
hand.  It goes without saying that the yardstick/standard which has
to   be   applied   with   regard   to   adjudging   suitability   of   the   incumbent
always   depends   upon   the   nature   of   post,   nature   of   duties,   effect   of
suppression over suitability to be considered by the authority on due
diligence of various aspects but no hard and fast rule of thumb can
be laid down in this regard. 
7

12. Earlier,   there   has   been   a   conflict   of   opinion   in   the   various
decisions   of   Division   Benches   of   this   Court   and   at   the   stage   when
the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   dismissed   the   writ   petition
under   the   impugned   order   dated   17 th
  November,   2015,   there   were
divergent views of this Court and that came to be later settled by a
three Judge Bench of this Court in   Avtar Singh v. Union of India
and   others. 1
.       While   summarizing   the   conclusion,   this   Court   has
laid   down   broad   guidelines   which   has   to   be   taken   note   of   by   the
appointing/competent   authority   in   dealing   with   the   matters   where
there is a suppression of material  information or  disclosure of  false
information   and   after   reconciling   the   earlier   judgments   succinctly
summarized the conclusions as under:
“34.   No   doubt   about   it   that   verification   of   character   and
antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess suitability and
it is open to employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but
ultimate   action   should   be   based   upon   objective   criteria   on   due
consideration of all relevant aspects.
35.   Suppression of “material” information presupposes that what is
suppressed that “matters” not every technical or trivial matter. The
employer   has   to   act   on   due   consideration   of   rules/instructions,   if
any,   in   exercise   of   powers   in   order   to   cancel   candidature   or   for
terminating   the   services   of   employee.   Though   a   person   who   has
suppressed   the   material   information   cannot   claim   unfettered   right
for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be
1  (2016) 8 SCC 471
8

dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable
manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases.
36.   What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature
of   post,   higher   post   would   involve   more   rigorous   criteria   for   all
services,   not   only   to   uniformed   service.   For   lower   posts   which   are
not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability
has   to   be   considered   by   authorities   concerned   considering
post/nature   of   duties/services   and   power   has   to   be   exercised   on
due consideration of various aspects.
37.   The   “McCarthyism”   is   antithesis   to   constitutional   goal,   chance
of   reformation   has   to   be   afforded   to   young   offenders   in   suitable
cases,   interplay   of   reformative   theory   cannot   be   ruled   out   in   toto
nor   can   be   generally   applied   but   is   one   of   the   factors   to   be   taken
into   consideration   while   exercising   the   power   for   cancelling
candidature or discharging an employee from service.
38.   We   have   noticed   various   decisions   and   tried   to   explain   and
reconcile   them   as   far   as   possible.   In   view   of   the   aforesaid
discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:
38.1.   Information   given   to   the   employer   by   a   candidate   as   to
conviction,   acquittal   or   arrest,   or   pendency   of   a   criminal   case,
whether before or after entering into service must be true and there
should be no suppression or false mention of required information.
38.2.   While passing order of termination of services or cancellation
of   candidature   for   giving   false   information,   the   employer   may   take
notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such
information.
38.3.   The   employer   shall   take   into   consideration   the   government
orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of
taking the decision.
38.4.   In   case   there   is   suppression   or   false   information   of
involvement   in   a   criminal   case   where   conviction   or   acquittal   had
already   been   recorded   before   filling   of   the   application/verification
form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the
following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted:
9

38.4.1.   In   a   case   trivial   in   nature   in   which   conviction   had   been
recorded,   such   as   shouting   slogans   at   young   age   or   for   a   petty
offence   which   if   disclosed   would   not   have   rendered   an   incumbent
unfit   for   post   in   question,   the   employer   may,   in   its   discretion,
ignore   such   suppression   of   fact   or   false   information   by   condoning
the lapse.
38.4.2.   Where   conviction   has   been   recorded   in   case   which   is   not
trivial   in   nature,   employer   may   cancel   candidature   or   terminate
services of the employee.
38.4.3.   If   acquittal   had   already   been   recorded   in   a   case   involving
moral  turpitude  or   offence  of   heinous/serious  nature,   on  technical
ground   and   it   is   not   a   case   of   clean   acquittal,   or   benefit   of
reasonable   doubt   has   been   given,   the   employer   may   consider   all
relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate
decision as to the continuance of the employee.
38.5.   In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully
of   a   concluded   criminal   case,   the   employer   still   has   the   right   to
consider   antecedents,   and   cannot   be   compelled   to   appoint   the
candidate.
38.6.   In   case   when   fact   has   been   truthfully   declared   in   character
verification   form   regarding   pendency   of   a   criminal   case   of   trivial
nature,   employer,   in   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,   in   its
discretion,   may   appoint   the   candidate   subject   to   decision   of   such
case.
38.7.   In   a   case   of   deliberate   suppression   of   fact   with   respect   to
multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume
significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling
candidature   or   terminating   services   as   appointment   of   a   person
against   whom   multiple   criminal   cases   were   pending   may   not   be
proper.
38.8.   If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate
at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and
the   appointing   authority   would   take   decision   after   considering   the
seriousness of the crime.
38.9.   In   case   the   employee   is   confirmed   in
service,   holding   departmental   enquiry   would   be   necessary   before
10

passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of
suppression or submitting false information in verification form.
38.10.   For   determining   suppression   or   false   information
attestation/verification   form   has   to   be   specific,   not   vague.   Only
such   information   which   was   required   to   be   specifically   mentioned
has   to   be   disclosed.   If   information   not   asked   for   but   is   relevant
comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in
an   objective   manner   while   addressing   the   question   of   fitness.
However,   in   such   cases   action   cannot   be   taken   on   basis   of
suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was
not even asked for.
38.11.   Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio
falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.”
13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is
that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of
the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded,
the   employee/recruit   is   not   to   be   discharged/terminated
axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen.  At the same time,
the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a
criminal   case,   if   any,   is   left   for   the   employer   to   consider   all   the
relevant   facts   and   circumstances   available   as   to   antecedents   and
keeping   in   view   the   objective   criteria   and   the   relevant   service   rules
into   consideration,   while   taking   appropriate   decision   regarding
continuance/suitability   of   the   employee   into   service.     What   being
11

noticed   by   this   Court   is   that   mere   suppression   of   material/false
information   in   a   given   case   does   not   mean   that   the   employer   can
arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service.  
14. At   one   stage   after   the   matter   being   heard,   detailed   order   was
passed   by   this   Court   on   21 st
  October,   2021   and   taking   note   of   the
judgment of  Avtar Singh  (supra) directed the employer to review its
decision   in   the   light   of   the   decision   of   this   Court.       In   compliance
thereof,   the   review   order   has   been   passed   on   23 rd
  December,   2021
confirming   its   earlier   decision   of   discharge   dated   24 th
  April,   2015.
The   bare   perusal   of   the   review   order   dated   23 rd
  December,   2021,
itself indicates that the authority  has not applied its mind and just
after   reproduction   of   facts,   confirmed   the   order   of   discharge   dated
24 th
 April, 2015.   
15. It   may   be   further   noticed   that   in   para   5(c)   of   the   order,   a
reference has been made of the affidavit submitted by the appellant
at  the   time   of   filling   his   application   form,   but   on  the   day   when   the
application   form   was   filled,   the   information   which   he   disclosed   in
terms   of   clause   9(f)   of   employment   notice   indisputedly,   no   criminal
case on that date was either instituted or pending against him.   It is
12

relevant to note that the employment notice is of 27 th
 February, 2011
and   the   alleged   criminal   case   was   instituted   on   4 th
  April,   2011.   At
the same time, the authority has not even considered the scope and
ambit   of   Rule   52   of   the   Rules   1987   that   after   verification   of   the
character/antecedents   of   the   incumbent,   it   will   be   an   obligation
upon the authority to examine as to whether the incumbent/recruit
is   suitable   to   become   a   member   of   the   force   and   without
appreciation   in   a   mechanical   manner   confirmed   the   order   of
discharge dated 24 th
 April, 2015.
16. The judgment relied upon by the respondent  Rajasthan Rajya
Vidyut   Prasaran   Nigam   Limited   and   another   v.   Anil
Kanwariya 2
  may not be of any assistance for the reason that it was
a case where the respondent employee before submitting application
pursuant to the advertisement inviting applications was convicted by
the   competent   Court   of   jurisdiction   and   this   fact   was   not   disclosed
by   him   while   filling   his   application   form   and   that   was   the   reason
favoured upon the Court while upholding  action  of the  authority  in
2  (2021) 10 SCC 136
13

passing   the   order   of   termination   which   was   impugned   in   the
proceedings. We have already quoted paragraph 38 of the judgment
by a three­Judge Bench of this Court in  Avtar Singh  (supra) and in
the context of the factual background of the present case applied the
said   principles.   One   distinguishing   factor,   as   noticed   above,   is   that
the   criminal   complaint/FIR   in   the   present   case   was   registered   post
submission   of   the   application   form.     We   have   also   taken   into
account the nature of the allegations made in the criminal case and
that   the   matter   was   of   trivial   nature   not   involving   moral   turpitude.
Further, the proceedings had ended in a clean acquittal. As is clear
from   paragraph   38   in   Avtar   Singh   (supra),   all   matters   cannot   be
put   in   a   straitjacket   and   a   degree   of   flexibility   and   discretion   vests
with the authorities, must be exercised with care and caution taking
all   the   facts   and   circumstances   into   consideration,   including   the
nature and type of lapse. 
17.   Adverting   to   the   facts   of   the   instant   case,   at   the   time   of
attestation   form   filled   by   the   appellant,   the   criminal   case   was
already registered against him but it may be noticed that at the very
threshold,   the   complainant   filed   his   affidavit   that   the   complaint   on
14

which  FIR  came  to  be  registered  was  due  to  misunderstanding  and
he   did   not   want   to   pursue   his   case   any   further,   but   still   charge­
sheet   came   to   be   filed   and   on   the   first   date   of   hearing,   the   alleged
victim   PW.1   did   not   support   case   of   the   prosecution   and   thus   the
order  of  clean   acquittal   came  to   be  passed   by   the   learned   Judge   of
competent jurisdiction by judgment dated 12 th
 August, 2011.
18.   The criminal case indeed was of trivial nature and the nature of
post and nature of duties to be discharged by the recruit has never
been   looked   into   by   the   competent   authority   while   examining   the
overall   suitability   of   the   incumbent   keeping   in   view   Rule   52   of   the
Rules   1987   to   become   a   member   of   the   force.     Taking   into
consideration the exposition expressed by this Court in  Avtar Singh
(supra), in our considered view the order of discharge passed by the
competent authority dated 24 th
 April, 2015 is not sustainable and in
sequel   thereto   the   judgment   passed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   High
Court of Delhi does not hold good and deserves to be set aside. 
19. Consequently,   the   appeal   succeeds   and   is   allowed.   The
judgment   of   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   dated   17 th
November,   2015   and   the   order   of   discharge   dated   24 th
  April,   2015
15

and   dated   23 rd
  December,   2021   are   hereby   quashed   and   set   aside.
The Respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant in service on
the   post   of   Constable   on   which   he   was   selected   pursuant   to   his
participation   in   reference   to   employment   notice   no.1/2011   dated
27 th
 February, 2011.  We make it clear that the appellant will not be
entitled for the arrears of salary for the period during which he has
not served the force and  at the same time he will be entitled for  all
notional   benefits,   including   pay,   seniority   and   other   consequential
benefits,   etc.       Necessary   orders   shall   be   passed   within   a   period   of
one month from today.   No costs. 
20.  All pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. 
…………………………….. J.
                                             (Ajay Rastogi)
…………………………….. J.
                                             (Sanjiv Khanna)
New Delhi.
May 02, 2022.
16