Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal for Suppressing Criminal Case in CISF Recruitment: Mukesh Kumar Raigar vs. Union of India (2023) INSC 30

Date of the Judgment: 16 January 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 30
Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi. This was a division bench. The judgment was authored by Justice Bela M. Trivedi.
Can a member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) be dismissed for not disclosing a pending criminal case during recruitment? The Supreme Court recently addressed this critical question, emphasizing the need for transparency and integrity in the armed forces. This case highlights the consequences of suppressing material information during the recruitment process, particularly in sensitive roles.

Case Background

The petitioner, Mukesh Kumar Raigar, was appointed as a constable in the CISF on November 3, 2007. In April 2009, he received a charge memorandum under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001. The charge alleged that he had suppressed information about a criminal case registered against him in 2003 under Sections 323, 324, and 341 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This case was pending trial when he submitted his character verification certificate to the CISF.

Initially, the disciplinary authority imposed a minor penalty of reducing his pay. However, the Deputy Inspector General (DIG) suo motu revised this order, leading to a fresh departmental inquiry. This inquiry resulted in the petitioner’s removal from service on March 9, 2010. His subsequent appeals and revision petitions were also dismissed.

The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur, which was initially successful. The Single Bench set aside the removal order, directing the authorities to reconsider the case in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India. However, the CISF authorities again found him unsuitable for the position. A subsequent writ petition was again allowed by the Single Bench, but this was overturned by the Division Bench of the High Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioner initially challenged his removal before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur. The Single Bench set aside the removal order, directing a reconsideration based on the Avtar Singh judgment. However, the CISF authorities again found him unsuitable. A subsequent writ petition was again allowed by the Single Bench, but this was overturned by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India, setting aside the Single Bench’s order.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Rule 36 and Rule 54 of the CISF Rules, 2001, which deal with disciplinary proceedings and revision of orders, respectively. The Supreme Court also considered the principles laid down in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471, which outlines the guidelines for dealing with cases of suppression of information in employment applications.

The Court also considered the principles laid down in Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India & Others (2022) SCC Online SC 1300, which further clarified the principles laid down in Avtar Singh.

The relevant principles from Avtar Singh vs. Union of India as extracted by the court are:

• “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.”
• “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.”
• “The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.”
• “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:”
  • “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.”
  • “Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.”
  • “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.”
• “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.”
• “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.”
• “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.”
• “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.”
• “In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.”
• “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.”
• “Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him”

The relevant principles from Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India & Others as extracted by the court are:

• “Each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by the public employer concerned, through its designated officials-more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society’s security.”
• “Even in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. The acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post. It would be still open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether the candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post.”
• “The suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification Form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee. If it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service.”
• “The generalisations about the youth, career prospects and age of the candidates leading to condonation of the offenders’ conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided.”
• “The Court should inquire whether the Authority concerned whose action is being challenged acted mala fide.”
• “Is there any element of bias in the decision of the Authority?”
• “Whether the procedure of inquiry adopted by the Authority concerned was fair and reasonable?”

Arguments

The petitioner argued that he was only 19 years old when the criminal case was registered and that the case was closed due to a compromise. He contended that the non-disclosure of this case was not a grave misconduct warranting removal from service. He relied on various decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts, arguing that a lenient view should have been taken, considering his age and acceptance of his mistake.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that CISF is a disciplined police force, and the post of constable is sensitive. They submitted that suppressing the material fact of his involvement in a criminal case was a gross misconduct. They referred to CISF Rules 2001 and circulars applicable to all Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF), emphasizing the policy guidelines regarding candidates with pending criminal cases.

The innovativeness of the argument by the petitioner lies in emphasizing the trivial nature of the offense and his young age at the time of the incident, arguing for a more lenient approach. The respondents innovatively relied on the strict disciplinary requirements of the CISF and the sensitive nature of the constable’s post to justify the dismissal.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues. However, the core issue before the court was whether the Division Bench of the High Court was correct in setting aside the order of the Single Bench, which had directed the reinstatement of the petitioner. The sub-issue was whether the suppression of the information regarding the pendency of a criminal case by the petitioner was a grave misconduct warranting his removal from service.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

The Court also considered Rule 36 and Rule 54 of the CISF Rules, 2001, which deal with disciplinary proceedings and revision of orders, respectively.

Judgment

The Court viewed the authorities as follows:

• Avtar Singh vs. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471*: The Court followed the principles laid down in this case, emphasizing that candidates must provide true information and that suppression of facts can lead to termination.
• Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India & Others (2022) SCC Online SC 1300*: The Court followed the principles laid down in this case, further clarifying the principles laid down in Avtar Singh.
• State of Orissa & Others vs. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra AIR 1963 SC 779*: The Court used this case to reiterate that the punishing authority has the power to impose punishment based on the gravity of the misconduct, and that the penalty is not open to review by the High Court under Article 226.
• B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India & Ors (1995) 6 SCC 749*: The Court used this case to highlight that judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made.
• Om Kumar & Others vs. Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386*: The Court used this case to reiterate that the question of quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily for the disciplinary authority, and the jurisdiction of the High Courts is limited.
• Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) & Ors. vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021) 2 SCC 612*: The Court cited this case to circumscribe the power of judicial review by constitutional courts, stating that it is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain the integrity and discipline of the CISF. The court emphasized the importance of transparency and honesty in the recruitment process for such a sensitive force. The suppression of information, even if the criminal case was later compromised, was viewed as a serious breach of conduct. The court also considered the principles laid down in Avtar Singh and Satish Chandra Yadav, which clearly state that suppression of information can lead to termination.

The Court also considered the fact that the petitioner had accepted his mistake during the disciplinary proceedings. However, this did not outweigh the gravity of the misconduct in the eyes of the Court. The Court also considered the fact that the CISF is an armed force deployed in sensitive sectors.

The Court also considered the limited scope of judicial review in such matters. The Court observed that the Single Bench of the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the decision of the disciplinary authority.

The ratio of Fact to Law is 20:80. This indicates that the court’s decision was primarily influenced by legal considerations. The factual aspects of the case, such as the petitioner’s age and the compromise in the criminal case, were not given as much weight as the legal principles governing the suppression of information in employment applications.

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as whether the petitioner’s young age and the compromise in the criminal case could be mitigating factors. However, the Court rejected these interpretations, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to the principles of transparency and integrity in the CISF. The Court also considered whether the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct. However, the Court upheld the decision of the disciplinary authority, stating that the punishment was not unreasonable given the gravity of the misconduct.

The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench of the High Court was correct in setting aside the order of the Single Bench. The Court found that the Single Bench had wrongly interfered with the order of removal passed by the respondent authorities. The Court stated that the petitioner had committed a gross misconduct by suppressing the fact of a pending criminal case during his recruitment.

The reasons for the decision are:

• The petitioner suppressed the material fact of a pending criminal case.
• The CISF is a disciplined force, and such misconduct cannot be condoned.
• The principles laid down in Avtar Singh and Satish Chandra Yadav clearly state that suppression of information can lead to termination.
• The Single Bench had exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the decision of the disciplinary authority.

The judgment was unanimous, with both judges concurring in the decision. There were no dissenting opinions.

The decision emphasizes the need for transparency and integrity in the armed forces. It also highlights the limited scope of judicial review in such matters. The judgment sets a precedent for future cases involving suppression of information in employment applications, particularly in sensitive roles.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. It reaffirmed the principles laid down in Avtar Singh and Satish Chandra Yadav.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Candidates applying for positions in disciplined forces like the CISF must disclose all pending criminal cases, regardless of their nature.
• ✓ Suppression of material information can lead to termination of service, even if the criminal case was later compromised.
• ✓ Courts will not interfere with the decisions of disciplinary authorities unless there is a clear violation of rules or principles of natural justice.
• ✓ The judgment emphasizes the importance of transparency and integrity in the recruitment process for sensitive positions.

This judgment may lead to stricter verification processes for recruitment in armed forces and other sensitive government positions. It may also have implications for other cases involving suppression of information in employment applications.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that suppression of material information, particularly regarding criminal cases, during the recruitment process for a disciplined force like CISF is a grave misconduct that can lead to termination of service. This case reinforces the principles laid down in Avtar Singh and Satish Chandra Yadav, emphasizing the need for transparency and integrity in such recruitments. The judgment does not introduce any new legal principles but clarifies the application of existing principles in the context of disciplined forces.

The judgment also clarifies that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited. The High Courts cannot interfere with the decisions of disciplinary authorities unless there is a clear violation of rules or principles of natural justice. This decision reinforces the idea that disciplinary matters are primarily within the domain of the disciplinary authority and the courts should not act as appellate bodies.

The case does not directly overrule any previous positions of the law. However, it clarifies and reinforces the principles laid down in Avtar Singh and Satish Chandra Yadav. It also provides guidance on how these principles should be applied in cases involving disciplined forces. The Court also clarified the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters.