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?

Yes. A reading of the verification required under the applicable Rules, coupled with the disciplinary control provisions, the declaration in the employment notice and the attestation form, makes it clear that a candidate will be discharged for non-disclosure of pending criminal cases; this is the mandate of law that governs the recruitment process.

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)

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.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India