Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court

Delhi High Court Upholds Termination of CISF Constable for Concealing Criminal Cases in Attestation Form

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court today upheld the termination of a CISF constable for suppressing information about pending criminal cases in his Attestation Form. The Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed, “Suppression of material information regarding pendency of Criminal Case has a bearing on the suitability of a candidate for a disciplined force like CISF.”

Legal Point of the Judgment: The court held that non-disclosure of pending criminal cases in the Attestation Form constitutes a suppression of material information, impacting the assessment of a candidate’s character and suitability for service in disciplined forces.

Facts and Issues: The petitioner, Shri Nomil Rana, was terminated from CISF after it was discovered that he had not disclosed information about two pending criminal cases against him in his Attestation Form. The petitioner argued that the form was filled out by another person and that he was unaware of the need to disclose these details. The respondents, Union of India and others, contended that such suppression of material facts warranted termination.

Court Assessment: The court meticulously evaluated the arguments, referring to various precedents including ‘Avtar Singh v. Union of India’ and ‘Satish Kumar Yadav v. Union of India’. The Bench highlighted the importance of integrity and transparency in forces like CISF. It was observed that the petitioner’s concealment of criminal cases was a significant lapse, adversely affecting his credibility.

Justice Rao noted, “Every appointment is subject to character and antecedent verification… Suppression of factual information in the Attestation Form can lead to disqualification and can render a candidate unfit for employment.”

Decision: Dismissing the petition, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s suppression of material information regarding pending criminal cases warranted the termination of his service. The Bench stated, “We do not see any merit in the present petition.”

Date of Decision: February 29, 2024

Shri Nomil Rana v. The Union of India and Ors.,

Latest Legal News