PAWAN KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 928 · Decided: 02-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
928
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
   [2022] 7 S.C.R. 928
928
PAWAN KUMAR
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 3574 of 2022)
MAY 02, 2022
[AJAY RASTOGI AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Service Law: Railway Protection Forces Rules, 1987: rr. 52
and 67.2 – Discharge order – Sustainability of – On facts, appellant-
recruit selected for the post of constable in Railway Protection
Forces – However, while undergoing training, discharged from
service on the ground of submission of false declaration/suppression
of relevant information in the verification form as regard his criminal
antecedents – Said discharge order upheld by the High Court – On
appeal: Held: Mere suppression of material/false information
regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has
been recorded in a given case does not mean that the employer can
arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service –
Candidate who intends to participate in the selection process is
always required to furnish correct information relating to his
character and antecedents in the verification/attestation form before
and after induction into service – Person who has suppressed the
material information or has made false declaration indeed has no
unfettered right of seeking appointment or continuity in service,
however, the competent authority has to exercise the power
judiciously – Yardstick/standard which has to be applied with regard
to adjudging suitability of the incumbent always depends upon the
nature of post, nature of duties, effect of suppression over suitability
–On facts, no FIR was registered on the date of filling the application
form – False criminal case of trivial nature was registered later
under misconception and the recruit was later acquitted – At the
time of filling up the attestation form, the recruit was required to
disclose whether he was ever arrested or prosecuted to which he
mentioned ‘No’ – It is true that a candidate is required to furnish
correct information before and after induction into service –
However, the competent authority is required to use their powers
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
929
judiciously and in a reasonable manner – Nature of post and nature
of duties to be discharged by the recruit has never been looked into
by the competent authority while examining the overall suitability
of the incumbent to become a member of the force – Thus, the
judgment of the High Court is unsustainable and set aside.
Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others (2016) 8 SCC
471 : [2016] 7 SCR 445- relied on.
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and
another v. Anil Kanwariya (2021) 10 SCC 136 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2016] 7 SCR 445
relied on
Para 18
(2021) 10 SCC 136
referred to
Para 16
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.3574
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.11.2015 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.7872 of 2015.
Rajiv Kataria, Ms. Debyani Das P., M/s Delhi Law Chambers,
Advs. for the Appellant.
K. M. Nataraj, Vatsal Joshi, Mohammed Akhil, Praneet Pranav,
Abhishek Raj, Shailesh Madiyal, Amrish Kumar, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RASTOGI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi dated 17th
November, 2015, whereby the High Court upheld the order of discharge
dated 24th April, 2015, taking recourse to clause 9(f) of the employment
notice no.1/2011 dated 27th February, 2011 read with Rule 67.2 of Railway
Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the RPF Rules
1987”).
3. The brief facts of the case culled out from the record are that
the employment notice for appointment to the post of Constable in the
Railway Protection Force (RPF), including Railway Police Special Force
PAWAN KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
930
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
(RPSF) came to be published on 27th February, 2011. The appellant being
eligible submitted application form and participated in the selection process
and after qualifying the written examination held on 23rd June, 2013
followed with physical efficiency test held on 12th June, 2014 and after
his final selection was sent for training. While the appellant was
undergoing training, he came to be discharged by an order dated 24th
April, 2015 invoking clause 9(f) of the employment notice no.1/2011
dated 27th February, 2011 and Rule 67.2 of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.