Supreme Court of India· 18 August 2026
Can a candidate who suppressed multiple pending criminal cases, without having been acquitted at the time of filling the attestation form, claim parity with other candidates who were reinstated after already being acquitted before filling their forms?
BAPPA BARAI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
2026 INSC 882 · SLP (C) NO. 12389 OF 2022
Coram: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; Alok Aradhe
Answer
No. Candidates acquitted of the criminal cases before filling the attestation form stand on a different footing, and a candidate who suppressed multiple pending cases without having been acquitted at that stage cannot claim parity with them; reinstatement decisions are based on a case-by-case study, not a blanket entitlement.
Headnote
Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 — Rules 52, 67 — Article 226 of the Constitution of India — discharge from service — suppression of criminal antecedents —
deliberate suppression of multiple pending cases — significance —
Held: In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending criminal cases, such false information by itself assumes significance, and an employer may cancel the candidature or terminate the services, as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper. (¶19, ¶21)
verification and attestation requirements — mandate of law —
Held further: The Rules, the employment notice and the attestation form together make it clear that a candidate will be discharged for non-disclosure of pending criminal cases — this is the mandate of law governing the recruitment process. (¶13–14, ¶18)
parity — different footing for candidates already acquitted —
Held further: Candidates acquitted of criminal cases before filling the attestation form stand on a different footing; a candidate who suppressed multiple pending cases without having been acquitted at that stage cannot claim parity with them. (¶12, ¶27–28)
natural justice — full opportunity through reconsideration and judicial review —
Held further: Though not specifically pleaded, natural justice stood fully complied with where discharge was first quashed and remanded for reconsideration, a fresh reasoned order followed, and both a Single Judge and a Division Bench independently reviewed it. (¶23)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 12Per contra, Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents, submitted the following: a) The appellants’ cases, on the direction of the Allahabad High Court, were re-examined in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in Avtar Singh (supra) by the respondents. It was only after an independent assessment, followed by reasoned discharge orders, that they were declared not suitable for the post of Constable in the RPSF & RPF in 2017. 8 b) It is settled law that suppression of material information and making a false statement in the Verification Form relating to criminal antecedents has a clear bearing on the character of the employee. Moreover, a person suppressing material information cannot claim an unfettered right to continuity in service. c) The reliance on Pawan Kumar (supra) by the appellants is incorrect as in that case, the criminal case registered against the appellant therein and his acquittal from the same happened before he filled the attestation/verification form. In the present case, all appellants had prior criminal antecedents before filling of the attestation form and had not been acquitted at the time when they filled the verification form. d) The appellants cannot claim parity with the persons reinstated as the decisions are based on a case-by-case study. They have been reinstated on the grounds that they were acquitted before filling up the Attestation Form or were found suitable for service pursuant to re- consideration as per the directions of various High Courts. 9
Paragraph 27We called upon the learned Additional Solicitor General to take instructions and inform us about reinstatement of similarly placed candidates. The ASG has informed us that 19 candidates were in fact reinstated. He would submit that out of the 19 candidates, 12 candidates were reinstated as they were acquitted of the criminal cases even before filling the Attestation Form. We are of the opinion 18 that these 12 candidates stand on a different footing, and the appellants cannot claim parity with them.
Paragraph 28As regards the remaining 7 candidates who were reinstated, the learned ASG would submit that there were orders of the High Courts directing reinstatement. He would further submit that in just few other cases, the authorities examined the claims of candidates on a case-to-case basis and having found that the allegations were trivial, they were taken back into service. In so far as the appellants are concerned, no such similarity existed, they signed the verification suppressing pending criminal cases and that there were concurrent findings of the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants. It is therefore submitted that the appellants can neither allege discrimination nor seek parity.
Acts & Sections
Railway Protection Force Act, 1957Constitution of IndiaOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of BAPPA BARAI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →