A False “No” in the Attestation Form Can Cost the Uniform: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of RPF Constables for Concealing Pending Criminal Cases

Case Name: Bappa Barai v. Union of India and Others

Date of Judgment: 18 August 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 882

Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe

Held: The Supreme Court held that deliberate suppression of a pending criminal case in an attestation or verification form constitutes a valid ground for discharging a candidate selected for appointment as a constable in the Railway Protection Force or Railway Protection Special Force. Where the form specifically requires disclosure of arrest, prosecution or pending criminal proceedings, a candidate who knowingly answers “No” furnishes false information and violates the rules governing recruitment.

The Court held that Rules 52 and 67 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, Clause 9(f) of the Employment Notice and the express warnings contained in the Attestation Form collectively impose a clear obligation upon candidates to make a complete and truthful disclosure of their criminal antecedents. The subsequent acquittal of a candidate does not erase or excuse the earlier deliberate suppression, particularly where the criminal case was pending and known to the candidate when the attestation form was filled.

The principles laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) , do not grant an automatic right to appointment or reinstatement merely because the criminal case was later concluded in favour of the candidate. The employer retains the authority to assess the candidate’s suitability, the nature of the suppression, the applicable service rules and the standards of integrity required for appointment to a disciplined uniformed force.

Summary: The appeals arose from a recruitment process initiated through an Employment Notice dated 23 February 2011 for appointment of constables in the Railway Protection Force and Railway Protection Special Force. The appellants cleared the written examination conducted on 16 June 2013, as well as the physical and efficiency tests. Their names were included in the select list published on 17 September 2014, following which they were called for verification of documents and medical examination and were ultimately sent for training.

During the verification process, the appellants were required to complete attestation forms that specifically asked whether they had ever been arrested or prosecuted. The form expressly warned that furnishing false information or suppressing a material fact could disqualify the candidate and could lead to termination if the suppression was discovered after appointment. Despite pending criminal cases against them, the appellants answered the relevant questions in the negative and did not disclose their criminal antecedents.

While the appellants were undergoing training, the RPF authorities discovered the pending criminal proceedings and found that the information had been deliberately withheld during verification. Orders discharging them from service were consequently passed between June and October 2015 under Rules 52 and 67 of the RPF Rules, Clause 9(f) of the Employment Notice and the conditions contained in the Attestation Form.

In the first round of litigation, Single Benches of the Allahabad High Court quashed the discharge orders and directed the authorities to reconsider each case in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India. The authorities thereafter reconsidered the individual cases and passed detailed and reasoned orders during 2017, once again holding the appellants unsuitable and discharging them for deliberate suppression of their criminal antecedents.

The appellants challenged the fresh discharge orders before the Allahabad High Court. The Single Judge dismissed their writ petitions, and the Division Bench, through its common judgment dated 22 September 2021, upheld the dismissal. The High Court found that the appellants knew about the pending criminal proceedings but consciously chose not to disclose them. It also found that they had neither pleaded ignorance of the cases nor demonstrated any special circumstances explaining their failure to provide truthful information.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that discharge solely on the ground of non-disclosure was contrary to Avtar Singh. They further contended that they had subsequently been acquitted and that several similarly situated candidates had been reinstated. Fourteen out of the seventeen appellants were stated to have been acquitted before the authorities passed the fresh discharge orders.

The Supreme Court rejected these submissions. It observed that the requirement of disclosure was neither vague nor uncertain. Columns 12(a) and 12(b) of the Attestation Form categorically required the candidates to disclose whether they had ever been arrested or prosecuted. Despite this specific requirement and an express warning about the consequences of suppression, the appellants consciously declared “No.” The Court observed that good conduct and strength of character are reflected in the choices made by an individual, and the appellants had chosen to conceal material information.

The Court explained that Avtar Singh requires the information supplied by a candidate regarding conviction, acquittal, arrest or the pendency of a criminal case to be truthful. While an employer may consider special circumstances, triviality of the offence, the nature of an acquittal and other relevant considerations, the decision does not protect deliberate falsehood. Where a candidate knowingly suppresses a pending criminal case, the employer may cancel the candidature or terminate the employment after objectively assessing the case under the applicable rules.

The Court distinguished Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, (2023) , because the candidate in that case had been acquitted much before filling the attestation form. In the present case, the criminal proceedings were pending when the appellants completed their verification forms. The Court also distinguished SPO/Constable IRB Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab 2026  , since that case involved a person who had already served for approximately twelve years and had been discharged merely because of the pendency of a criminal case. The present appeals, in contrast, involved recruits who had not yet been formally appointed and had knowingly furnished false information.

Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the Allahabad High Court’s common judgment dated 22 September 2021 and affirmed the reasoned discharge orders passed by the RPF authorities in 2017. It found that the appellants had knowingly suppressed pending criminal cases despite the attestation form specifically requiring disclosure and clearly stating the consequences of false information.

The Court further held that the authorities had complied with the principles of natural justice. Following the first round of litigation, the appellants’ cases were reconsidered individually in accordance with Avtar Singh, detailed reasons were recorded, and the discharge orders were subjected to judicial review by both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court.