Summary
Two CRPF recruits, a probationer constable and a sub-inspector with four years' service, answered 'No' in their verification forms to questions about arrest, prosecution and pending cases. In fact each was on bail in a pending criminal case arising from a village dispute, and both were later acquitted. Both were removed from service, and the Delhi High Court upheld the removals. Reviewing the case law since Avtar Singh, the Supreme Court set out principles. A truthful disclosure does not compel appointment, and suppression or a false statement bears on character and can justify termination. Courts should avoid generalisations about youth and career, and ask only whether the employer acted mala fide, with bias or by an unfair procedure. The suppression here was deliberate, a probationer could be discharged for it, and relief under Article 136 is exceptional, so both appeals failed.
Issues
- Whether recruits to the CRPF who answered 'No' in the verification form despite a pending criminal case, in which they were later acquitted, could be removed from service for suppression.
- What principles govern judicial review of an employer's decision to terminate for suppression of criminal antecedents, in light of Avtar Singh and later decisions.
- The scope of interference under Article 136 with such decisions.
Provisions considered
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaSpecial leave jurisdiction is exercised sparingly, only where exceptional circumstances and grave injustice are shown (Pritam Singh, Hem Raj, P.S.R. Sadhanantham). No such case was made out. (¶¶ 70, 72, 73, 74, 75)
- Section 11 read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949Giving false information in the CRP-25 verification form at recruitment was treated as misconduct, and the second appellant's removal followed an inquiry on that charge. (¶¶ 24.5, 24.9)
- Rule 5(1), Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965Used to terminate the first appellant, a temporary employee on probation, after police verification revealed the pending case he had denied in the form. (¶¶ 5.3, 77)
Held
- Synthesising the precedents, the Court held that each case must be scrutinised by the employer, especially in police forces. A truthful disclosure does not compel appointment, and acquittal does not automatically entitle a candidate to the post. Suppression or false statements about arrest, prosecution or conviction bear on character and may justify termination. (¶¶ 68, 69)
- Generalisations about youth, career prospects and age should not drive judicial verdicts. Courts should instead ask whether the authority acted mala fide or with bias and whether the inquiry procedure was fair and reasonable. (¶ 69)
- Discretionary decisions within statutory bounds deserve considerable deference, and review is confined to bad faith, improper purpose, irrelevant considerations or unreasonableness. (¶ 78)
- The first appellant knew of the pending case, having surrendered and obtained bail, so his 'No' was deliberate. As a probationer he could be discharged on that ground, the reason being the suppression rather than the case itself (Ram Ratan Yadav). The same reasoning applied to the second appellant despite his four years' service. (¶¶ 76, 77, 79, 80, 82)
Result
Both appeals dismissed. The termination and removal of the two CRPF personnel for suppressing pending criminal cases in their verification forms were upheld. No costs.