Supreme Court Upholds Termination of CRPF Constable for Suppressing Criminal Case

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated July 23, 2024, upheld the termination of Shishu Pal @ Shiv Pal, a former constable of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), for suppressing material information regarding his criminal antecedents at the time of recruitment. The Court reversed the decision of the Gauhati High Court, which had reinstated the respondent with back wages and directed the CRPF to impose a minor penalty instead.

Background of the Case

The case originated from the appointment process of Shishu Pal, who was recruited as a Constable (General Duty) in the CRPF on November 30, 2011. At the time of recruitment, he was required to fill a Verification Roll, which contained specific queries about his criminal history. The form explicitly warned that suppression of material facts regarding criminal proceedings could lead to termination.

During the verification process, the authorities received a complaint alleging that the respondent had concealed his involvement in criminal cases, namely:

Criminal Case No. 459/2011 under IPC Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 332, 427, 504, 506, and Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act.
Criminal Case No. 537/2011 registered at Barnhal Police Station, Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh.

Based on this information, the CRPF initiated an inquiry and found that the respondent had indeed been implicated in the cases but had concealed this information while filling out the Verification Roll.

Proceedings Before the CRPF

Following an internal inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority found that:

The respondent had been arrested and granted bail on October 4, 2011, well before he filled the Verification Roll.
He had knowingly suppressed this information.
He had submitted forged police reports in an attempt to mislead the authorities.

Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority terminated his services on June 24, 2014, a decision that was upheld by the Appellate Authority on September 23, 2014.

Challenge Before the Gauhati High Court

The respondent challenged his termination before the Gauhati High Court, arguing that:

He was unaware of the criminal cases against him at the time of recruitment.
He had later been acquitted in Criminal Case No. 459/2011.
The punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the alleged offense.

The Single Judge of the High Court ruled in his favor, setting aside the termination order and directing the CRPF to reinstate him with 50% back wages. The CRPF was given the liberty to impose a minor penalty instead. This decision was later upheld by a Division Bench.

Supreme Court’s Observations

1. Suppression of Material Information

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent had deliberately concealed his criminal background and noted:

“The records speak to the contrary and make short shrift of such a plea taken by the respondent. The respondent does not deserve any latitude as it has been established beyond doubt that he was all along aware of the FIR registered against him.”

2. Submission of Forged Documents

The Court found that the respondent had submitted fabricated police reports claiming that no cases were pending against him. The Inquiry Officer had confirmed that these documents were not issued by the concerned police station.

3. Rejection of the High Court’s Findings

The Court held that the High Court erred in granting relief to the respondent, stating:

“It was incumbent for the appellants to have proven the fact that pendency of the criminal case was within the knowledge of the respondent and the said information had been deliberately withheld by him.”

4. Stringent Standards for Law Enforcement Officers

The Supreme Court reiterated that law enforcement officers are held to a higher standard of integrity:

“One must be mindful of the fact that once appointed to such a post, a responsibility would be cast on the respondent of maintaining law and order in the society, enforcing the law, dealing with arms and ammunition, apprehending suspected criminals and protecting the life and property of the public at large.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Gauhati High Court.
The termination order dated June 24, 2014 was upheld.
The appeal filed by the Union of India was allowed, and the respondent’s plea was dismissed.

Key Takeaways

Suppression of criminal cases in job applications can lead to termination: The Court reaffirmed that candidates must disclose all pending criminal cases truthfully.
Forged documents worsen the case: The submission of fake documents was a significant factor in the decision to terminate the respondent.
Law enforcement officers are held to higher integrity standards: The ruling underscores the importance of transparency in recruitment for police and paramilitary forces.
Judicial intervention is limited in such cases: The Court clarified that once an inquiry establishes wrongdoing, courts should not interfere lightly.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that honesty and integrity are paramount for individuals in law enforcement. By upholding the termination of the respondent, the Court set a strong precedent that suppression of material facts and submission of false documents will not be tolerated in government recruitment.

Petitioner Name: Union of India & Others.
Respondent Name: Shishu Pal @ Shiv Pal.
Judgment By: Justice Hima Kohli, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.
Place Of Incident: Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 22-07-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: union-of-india-&-oth-vs-shishu-pal-@-shiv-pa-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-22-07-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Judgment by Hima Kohli
See all petitions in Judgment by Ahsanuddin Amanullah
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category