Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal for Concealing Criminal Cases in CRPF Recruitment (26 September 2022)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether concealing information about pending criminal cases during recruitment justifies dismissal from service.

CASE TYPE: Service Law (Central Armed Police Forces)

Case Name: Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India & Ors. and Pushpendra Kumar Yadav vs. Union of India & Ors.

Judgment Date: 26 September 2022

Date of the Judgment: 26 September 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 449

Judges: Surya Kant, J. and J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Can a government employee be dismissed for not disclosing a past criminal case during recruitment, even if they were later acquitted? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in two related cases concerning the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). The court examined whether concealing information about pending criminal cases during the recruitment process justifies the termination of employment. This judgment clarifies the importance of honesty and transparency in the recruitment process, especially for disciplined forces.

Case Background

The Supreme Court of India addressed two appeals regarding the dismissal of CRPF personnel for concealing criminal cases during their recruitment. The first case involved Satish Chandra Yadav, a Constable (General Duty), and the second involved Pushpendra Kumar Yadav, a Sub-Inspector/GD. Both individuals were terminated for providing false information in their verification forms.

Satish Chandra Yadav’s Case: Satish Chandra Yadav was recruited as a temporary Constable (GD) in the CRPF on 28 July 2014. After training, he joined the 179th Battalion on 17 December 2015. During recruitment, he stated that no criminal cases were pending against him. However, a verification revealed that a case under Sections 147, 323, 324, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) had been registered against him in 2008. His services were terminated on 11 March 2016 for concealing this information.

Pushpendra Kumar Yadav’s Case: Pushpendra Kumar Yadav applied for the post of SI in the CRPF in August 2011. He also falsely stated in his verification form that no criminal cases were pending against him. However, a case under Sections 147, 149, 323, 325, 504, 506, and 307 of the IPC had been registered against him in 2002. He was removed from service on 23 September 2016, after a departmental inquiry.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Satish Chandra Yadav’s Case: The High Court of Delhi initially remanded the matter for fresh consideration, but the termination was reiterated. The High Court then upheld the dismissal, stating that Yadav deliberately provided a wrong answer in the verification form.

Pushpendra Kumar Yadav’s Case: The High Court of Delhi upheld the dismissal, stating that the policy guidelines do not excuse a candidate from giving correct answers in the application form. The court also noted that the acquittal was not before his appointment.

Legal Framework

The court considered the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, specifically Rule 5(1), which allows for the termination of temporary employees. The court also referenced Section 11 of the CRPF Act and Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, which deal with misconduct and misbehavior of CRPF personnel.

The verification form (CRP-25) included questions such as:

• (a) Have you ever been arrested? Yes/No
• (b) Have you ever been prosecuted? Yes/No
• (c) Have you ever been kept under detention? Yes/No
• (i) Is any case pending against you in any Court of Law at the time of filling up this Verification Roll? Yes/No

Both appellants answered “No” to all these questions.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of Satish Chandra Yadav

• The criminal case was trivial and did not involve moral turpitude.
• He was unaware of the case’s pendency when filling the form.
• The verification form was vague and confusing.
• He was only 19 years old at the time of the incident, which was a family dispute.
• He was falsely accused and later acquitted.
• The employer should have considered the special circumstances of the case as per Avatar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471.

Arguments on behalf of Pushpendra Kumar Yadav

• The criminal prosecution did not involve moral turpitude.
• He was 19 years old and studying outside the village when the case was instituted.
• He believed the matter was resolved due to a settlement.
• He never received any summons nor appeared before any court.
• He did not understand the meaning of the verification form questions.
• The District Magistrate’s report stated nothing adverse was found in police records.
• He served sincerely for 5 years and was rewarded for his service.
• He was also selected in the CISF as an ASI but did not join.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondents

• Both appellants suppressed material facts, which was sufficient for termination.
• They suppressed information about their arrest and pending criminal cases.
• The acquittals were not honorable, as they were due to hostile witnesses.
• The employer must consider the gravity of the offense, as per Avtar Singh (supra).
• Suppression of facts cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force.
• Judicial review is limited to cases of malice, mindlessness, or gross illegality, as per Commissioner of Police v. Raj Kumar, (2021) 8 SCC 347.
• The employer has the right to consider the suitability of a candidate, even if there was a truthful declaration, as per Union of India and Others v. Methu Meda, (2022) 1 SCC 1.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned order?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran [AIR (1996) SC 686]: Cited to support the view that fraudulent appointments can be terminated without inquiry.
• Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar [(1996) 11 SCC 605]: Cited to emphasize the importance of character and antecedents.
• Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav [(2003) 3 SCC 437]: Cited to show that suppression of material information justifies termination.
• Kamal Nayan Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2010) 2 SCC 169]: Cited to clarify the position that probationers can be terminated without inquiry for suppressing facts.
• R. Radhakrishnan v. Director General of Police [(2008) 1 SCC 660]: Cited to show that higher standards are expected in disciplined services.
• Union of India v. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen [(2008) 11 SCC 314]: Cited to highlight that police officers must have high integrity.
• State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar [(2008) (3) SCC 222]: Cited to show that benefit of mistaken impression can be given in cases of technical arrests.
• Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India [(2010) 14 SCC 103]: Cited to support the view that suppression of facts is a ground for termination.
• Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar [(2011) 4 SCC 644]: Cited to show that leniency can be considered for minor offenses by young people.
• Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P. [(2012) 8 SCC 748]: Cited to lay down principles for considering cases of suppression of material facts.
• Commissioner of Police v. Mehar Singh [(2013) 7 SCC 685]: Cited to emphasize that the nature of the offense and the type of acquittal must be examined.
• Avtar Singh v. Union of India [(2016) 8 SCC 471]: Cited as the key precedent providing guidelines on handling false information.
• Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration v. Pradeep Kumar [(2018) 1 SCC 797]: Cited to show that acquittal does not automatically entitle reinstatement.
• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bunty [(2020) 17 SCC 654]: Cited to show that moral turpitude is a factor in suitability.
• State of Rajasthan v. Love Kush Meena [(2021) 8 SCC 774]: Cited to emphasize that a benefit of doubt does not make a candidate eligible.
• Union of India v. Methu Meda [(2022) 1 SCC 1]: Cited to show that the employer can consider antecedents even after a truthful declaration.
• Union of India v. Dilip Kumar Mallick [(2022) 6 Scale 108]: Cited to show that non-disclosure is as serious as false information.
• Pawan Kumar v. Union of India [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 532]: Cited to show that discharge is not automatic for suppression of facts.
• Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited v. Anil Kanwariya [(2021) 10 SCC 136]: Cited to emphasize that the credibility of an employee is paramount.
• Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 17 SCC 696]: Cited to show that moral turpitude should not be mechanically applied.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of honesty and transparency during the recruitment process, particularly for disciplined forces like the CRPF. The court highlighted that the suppression of material facts, such as pending criminal cases, undermines the integrity of the recruitment process. The court also noted that the nature of the offense, the circumstances of the acquittal, and the credibility of the employee are crucial factors to consider.

The Court considered that both Satish Chandra Yadav and Pushpendra Kumar Yadav had deliberately withheld information about pending criminal cases. This was viewed as a breach of trust, making them unsuitable for service in a disciplined force. The Court emphasized that the termination was not solely based on the criminal cases themselves but on the act of dishonesty in concealing them.

The court also considered the nature of the acquittals. It noted that the acquittals in both cases were not “honorable” but were based on the prosecution’s failure to prove the charges, often due to witnesses turning hostile. This distinction was important because the court held that an acquittal based on a technicality or benefit of doubt does not automatically make a candidate suitable for employment in a disciplined force.

The court balanced the need for fairness with the need to maintain the integrity of the CRPF. While acknowledging that young people may make mistakes, the court emphasized that honesty is paramount, especially in services where public trust is essential. The court also noted that the employer has the right to consider the suitability of a candidate and that this right should not be undermined by technicalities.

The court also considered the scope of judicial review. It reiterated that courts should not interfere with the decisions of the employer unless there is evidence of malice, mindlessness, or gross illegality. The court emphasized that the employer has the discretion to determine the suitability of a candidate and that this discretion should be respected.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Explanation: The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced more by legal considerations (60%) than factual aspects of the case (40%). The court’s analysis focused heavily on established legal principles, precedents, and the interpretation of rules and regulations related to service law and recruitment. While the specific facts of each case were considered, the legal framework and the need to maintain the integrity of the system were the primary drivers of the court’s reasoning.

Logical Reasoning

The court rejected the argument that the criminal cases were trivial, emphasizing that the act of concealing information was a breach of trust. The court also rejected the argument that the appellants were unaware of the pendency of the cases, stating that they had a responsibility to provide accurate information. The court held that the employer had the right to consider the suitability of the candidates and that this right should not be undermined by technicalities.

The court’s decision was also influenced by the nature of the service. It held that higher standards of integrity are expected in disciplined forces like the CRPF and that any act of dishonesty should be viewed seriously.

The court also cited the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited v. Anil Kanwariya, (2021) 10 SCC 136, emphasizing the importance of the credibility and trustworthiness of an employee. The court held that if an employee suppresses important information or makes a false declaration, it is within the employer’s discretion to terminate their services.

The court also analyzed the scope of Article 136 of the Constitution, stating that the Supreme Court’s power to grant special leave should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where substantial injustice has been done. The court held that the present cases did not meet this threshold.

The court quoted from Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169, stating that the Supreme Court should not interfere with the decision of the High Court unless exceptional and special circumstances exist.

The court also quoted from Hem Raj v. State of Ajmer, AIR 1954 SC 462, stating that the Supreme Court should not exercise its overriding powers unless substantial and grave injustice has been done.

The court further quoted from P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam, (1980) 3 SCC 141, stating that the Supreme Court’s power under Article 136 is a special jurisdiction that should be exercised with scrupulous adherence to judicial principles.

The court concluded that the High Courts had not committed any error in upholding the dismissal of the appellants. The court held that the appellants had deliberately withheld relevant information and that this omission justified the termination of their services.

The court also noted that the services of Satish Chandra Yadav were terminated during his probation period, and that the respondent had the liberty to dispense with his services if the facts given in the verification form were wrong. The court also noted that the question of any stigma or penal consequences did not arise at this stage.

The court held that the termination of services was not based on the criminal cases themselves but on the fact that the appellants had withheld relevant information while filling the verification forms. The court also held that the appellants had exhibited a tendency that shook the confidence of the respondent.

The court also emphasized that administrative law recognizes that discretionary decisions must be made within the bounds of the jurisdiction conferred by the statutory rules, but that considerable deference will be given to the decision-makers. The court held that the employer had acted within the scope of its discretion and that the court should not interfere with this discretion.

The court also noted that the observations in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav, (2003) 3 SCC 437, were fully applicable to the appeal filed by Satish Chandra Yadav. The court held that the employer had acted within its rights to terminate the services of Satish Chandra Yadav.

The court concluded that the appeals lacked merit and dismissed them. The court upheld the decisions of the High Courts, emphasizing the importance of honesty and transparency in the recruitment process, especially for disciplined forces.