Service Law: Railway Protection Forces Rules, 1987: rr. 52 and 67.2 – Discharge order – Sustainability of – On facts, appellantrecruit selected for the post of constable in Railway Protection Forces – However, while undergoing training, discharged from service on the ground of submission of false declaration/suppression of relevant information in the verification form as regard his criminal antecedents – Said discharge order upheld by the High Court – On appeal: Held: Mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service – 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 – Person who has suppressed the material information or has made false declaration indeed has no unfettered right of seeking appointment or continuity in service, however, the competent authority has to exercise the power judiciously – 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 –On facts, no FIR was registered on the date of filling the application form – False criminal case of trivial nature was registered later under misconception and the recruit was later acquitted – At the time of filling up the attestation form, the recruit was required to disclose whether he was ever arrested or prosecuted to which he mentioned ‘No’ – It is true that a candidate is required to furnish correct information before and after induction into service – However, the competent authority is required to use their powers judiciously and in a reasonable manner – 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 to become a member of the force – Thus, the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable and set aside.
Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others (2016) 8 SCC
471 : [2016] 7 SCR 445- relied on.
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and another v. Anil Kanwariya (2021) 10 SCC 136 –
referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.