LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 18 August 2026

Where an employee’s discharge was first quashed and remanded for reconsideration under governing precedent, a fresh reasoned order was then passed, and both a Single Judge and a Division Bench independently reviewed it, are the principles of natural justice satisfied even though the plea was not specifically raised before the Supreme Court?

BAPPA BARAI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
2026 INSC 882 · SLP (C) NO. 12389 OF 2022
Coram: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; Alok Aradhe
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow Railway Protection Force Act, 1957📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

Yes. Though the plea of violation of natural justice was not taken before this Court, the record shows the appellants were given full opportunity — their initial discharge was set aside with a direction to reconsider as per governing precedent, detailed reasoned orders were passed on reconsideration, and both the Single Judge and the Division Bench thereafter conducted judicial review — so the principles of natural justice were fully complied with.

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 23Further, though the plea relating to the violation of the principle of natural justice was not taken by the appellants before this Court, it is seen from the record that they were all discharged from service between June to October 2015 but in the first round of litigation, the High Court set aside the said orders and directed the authorities to reconsider the decision as per the principles laid down in Avatar Singh (supra). Following the said direction, detailed orders were passed in the year 2017 with reasons for discharge recorded and in compliance with the principles laid down in Avatar Singh (supra). The 16 discharge orders of 2017 are the subject matter of the present litigation, whereunder the Single Judge and the Division Bench conducted the necessary judicial review and upheld the executive action. In this background, we have no hesitation in holding that the principles of natural justice are fully complied with and that the appellants had full opportunity to represent their cases.
Acts & Sections
Railway Protection Force Act, 1957Constitution of India

One 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 account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Where a candidate for public employment deliberately suppresses information about multiple pending criminal cases in the verification/attestation form, what significance does that suppression carry?Where the governing rules, the employment notice, and the attestation form together require a candidate to disclose pending criminal cases and warn of discharge for non-disclosure, is that disclosure requirement enforceable as the governing mandate of law?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?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections