Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of RPF Recruit Based on Criminal Antecedents: Union of India vs. Santosh Kumar Singh (26 April 2023)

Case Background

Santosh Kumar Singh was offered a position as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF) on compassionate grounds. He filled out the Attestation Form on January 27, 2009, and began training on March 1, 2009. However, before his formal appointment, a routine police verification revealed that a First Information Report (FIR) had been filed against him on February 16, 2009, at Mashrakh Police Station, Bihar. The charges included offences under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Consequently, on April 23, 2010, he was discharged from service under Rules 52.2 and 67.2 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, Santosh Kumar Singh’s writ petition challenging his discharge was dismissed by a single judge of the Calcutta High Court on April 6, 2016. The judge cited a delay of six years in challenging the discharge order, the non-disclosure of his involvement in the FIR, and the unnatural death of his wife. The court also noted that his acquittal was due to the informant turning hostile, and that he was not a regular employee. The authorities were deemed to be within their rights to discharge him under Rules 52.2 and 67.2 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. However, on appeal, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court overturned this decision on March 9, 2021, stating that since Santosh Kumar Singh had been acquitted, his discharge was invalid. The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following rules of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987:

• Rule 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.”
• Rule 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.”
• Rule 67.2: “A direct recruit selected for being appointed as enrolled member, till such time he is not formally appointed to the Force, is liable to be discharged at any stage if the Chief Security Commissioner for reasons to be recorded in writing, deems it fit so to do in the interest of the Force.”

These rules mandate character and antecedent verification before formal appointment and allow for discharge if a recruit is deemed unsuitable in the interest of the Force.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides are summarized below:

The Union of India argued that the discharge was justified under Rules 52.2 and 67.2 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, as the respondent’s involvement in a criminal case came to light during the verification process. They emphasized that the rules allow for discharge if a recruit is deemed unsuitable before formal appointment. On the other hand, Santosh Kumar Singh contended that his discharge was not justified as he was acquitted in the criminal trial and had not provided false information in the Attestation Form. He also highlighted that the discharge order was challenged after his acquittal.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issue:

1. Whether the discharge of the respondent from service was valid under Rules 52.2 and 67.2 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, given that he was later acquitted in the criminal case?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the discharge order dated April 23, 2010, was valid. The Court reasoned that the respondent’s involvement in a criminal case, which came to light during the verification process, justified his discharge under Rules 52.2 and 67.2 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. The Court distinguished the case from Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India & Anr., stating that the facts were different. The Court also relied on Union of India & Ors. vs. Methu Meda, which held that an acquittal based on benefit of doubt or hostile witnesses does not automatically entitle a person to employment, especially in a disciplined force. The Court stated, “In the present case, the order/letter of discharge dated 23.04.2010 was passed after consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances, which order/letter, we feel, could not have been interfered with or set aside by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court.” The court further stated, “It is an accepted case that the respondent – Santosh Kumar Singh was not formally appointed. It is during the character and antecedents verification exercise that the respondent – Santosh Kumar Singh’s involvement in the criminal case had come to the notice of the authorities.” The Court also noted, “The discharge order/letter dated 23.04.2010 expressly states that the respondent – Santosh Kumar Singh had conducted himself in an unbecoming manner and, keeping in view that he was facing serious criminal charges under Sections 304-B and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC, it was decided to discharge him.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

The Court emphasized the importance of character verification for recruits in disciplined forces and the need to maintain the integrity of the RPF. The fact that the respondent was facing serious criminal charges at the time of his discharge, even though he was later acquitted due to witnesses turning hostile, was a significant factor in the Court’s decision. The Court also noted that the respondent was not a regular employee and was discharged before formal appointment. The Court’s reasoning was more inclined towards the legal provisions and the factual matrix of the case, rather than the moral turpitude or other considerations.

The Court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case (60%), such as the timing of the criminal charges and the nature of the acquittal, than by purely legal considerations (40%), which focused on the interpretation of the RPF Rules.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Character Verification: The judgment emphasizes the importance of thorough character and antecedent verification for recruits in disciplined forces like the RPF.
• Discharge Before Formal Appointment: Recruits can be discharged before formal appointment if adverse information is discovered during verification, even if they are later acquitted.
• Acquittal Not Always Sufficient: An acquittal based on benefit of doubt or hostile witnesses may not automatically entitle a person to employment, especially in disciplined forces.
• Employer’s Discretion: Employers have the right to consider a candidate’s suitability based on their past conduct and criminal history, even if they have been acquitted.
• Strict Interpretation of Rules: The Court strictly interpreted Rules 52.2 and 67.2 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, upholding the discharge order.

Directions

No specific directions were issued by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a recruit in the Railway Protection Force can be discharged before formal appointment if adverse information about their criminal antecedents is discovered during verification, even if they are later acquitted, especially if the acquittal is based on witnesses turning hostile. This case reinforces the principle that employers, particularly in disciplined forces, have the right to assess a candidate’s suitability based on their past conduct and that an acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically guarantee employment. This judgment does not change the previous position of law, but reinforces the powers of the employer to take action against a recruit before formal appointment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the Union of India, setting aside the judgment of the Calcutta High Court. The Court upheld the discharge of Santosh Kumar Singh from the Railway Protection Force, emphasizing the importance of character verification and the employer’s right to discharge recruits before formal appointment based on adverse findings. This case underscores that an acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically guarantee employment, particularly in disciplined forces, and that the employer has the right to assess the suitability of a candidate based on their past conduct.