Discharge from Service for Non-Disclosure of Criminal Case Held Arbitrary, Reinstatement Ordered: Calcutta High Court

Calcutta High Court setting aside his discharge from the Railway Protection Force (RPF) for allegedly suppressing information about a pending criminal case during the recruitment process. A Division Bench comprising Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee held that the omission was a bona fide mistake, untainted by fraud or dishonest intent, and directed his reinstatement.
The decision emphasizes the need for flexibility and fairness in assessing such lapses, especially when the alleged offenses are trivial, and the candidate has been honorably acquitted. The court applied principles laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471, which call for a holistic evaluation of the facts and circumstances in cases of alleged suppression during recruitment.
Ram Asheesh Yadav applied for the post of constable in the RPF and was provisionally selected in 2014. However, his recruitment was canceled in 2015, citing his failure to disclose a pending criminal case under Sections 341, 504, and 506 of the IPC in the attestation form. The criminal case, initiated in 2011, alleged minor offenses of wrongful restraint, criminal intimidation, and use of abusive language. Ram claimed he was unaware of the case's pendency at the time of filling out the form, having received summons only after submitting the attestation form.
Following his acquittal in 2015, Ram challenged his discharge through multiple legal proceedings. The Allahabad High Court quashed the initial discharge order in 2018, directing a fresh consideration, but a second discharge order was issued. When his subsequent writ petition was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, he filed a fresh petition before the Calcutta High Court, which upheld his discharge in 2024. Aggrieved, Ram appealed before the Division Bench.
The respondents argued that Ram deliberately suppressed information about the pending criminal case, violating the requirement of impeccable character for disciplined forces like the RPF. However, the court found that Ram’s omission was a bona fide mistake, not an act of fraud.
•    Ram was unaware of the case’s pendency at the time of filling out the attestation form. He had been granted bail in 2011 and received summons only in May 2014, after submitting the form.
•    The court noted that the offenses under Sections 341, 504, and 506 IPC were trivial and did not constitute “serious crimes” involving moral turpitude.
“Failure to state the pendency of the case, due to lack of knowledge, cannot be construed as suppression of material facts or dishonest intent.” 
The court emphasized that the offenses alleged against Ram were minor in nature and did not involve moral turpitude. In such cases, the employer is obligated to consider whether non-disclosure can be condoned.
“The offenses alleged, under Sections 341, 504, and 506 IPC, cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed as serious crimes. The employer failed to consider whether the omission was trivial and condonable.” 
The court applied the principles laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, which mandate a flexible approach in assessing omissions in disclosure. It held that trivial lapses, especially those arising from bona fide mistakes, do not disqualify candidates automatically.
•    The judgment in Pawan Kumar v. Union of India was also cited, highlighting the need for discretion and a holistic evaluation of facts, including the type of offense and the intent behind the omission.
“To mechanically treat every omission as fraud undermines the principles of fairness. A degree of flexibility is required to evaluate the context and intent.” 
The court criticized the employer’s rigid approach in discharging Ram without considering the facts holistically. It held that the employer failed to apply discretion, as required by the principles laid down in Avtar Singh.
“The employer’s refusal to exercise discretion in favor of the appellant, despite his honorable acquittal and lack of dishonest intent, was arbitrary and unreasonable.” 
While acknowledging the importance of character verification in disciplined forces, the court held that minor errors or omissions, particularly those arising from genuine mistakes, do not automatically render a candidate unsuitable.
“Mere wrong statements in the application, if immaterial for determining conduct, cannot tarnish the candidate’s suitability for disciplined forces.” 
The court held that Ram’s discharge was arbitrary and disproportionate, given the triviality of the offenses, his lack of knowledge about the case’s pendency, and his honorable acquittal. The earlier judgment of the Single Judge and the discharge order were set aside.
1.    Discharge Order Quashed: The court set aside the discharge order dated April 13, 2018, passed by the RPF authorities.
2.    Reinstatement Directed: Ram was directed to be reinstated to the post of constable in the RPF at the same stage where he was discharged. The reinstatement was to be completed within eight weeks.
3.    No Costs Imposed: The court declined to impose costs, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness.
“The order of discharge suffers from the vice of arbitrariness… The refusal to exercise discretion in favor of the appellant cannot be construed as reasonable.” 
This judgment reinforces the principle that trivial lapses in disclosure, arising from bona fide mistakes, should not lead to severe consequences like dismissal from service, particularly when the offenses are minor and the candidate has been honorably acquitted. It underscores the need for flexibility, fairness, and discretion in disciplinary matters, especially in recruitment to disciplined forces.
The ruling also serves as a reminder to employers to consider the facts and intent holistically rather than mechanically applying strict rules, which can result in unjust outcomes.
 

Date of Decision: January 9, 2025