MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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