Delhi High Court
Kailash Mandal vs Director General Central Industrial … on 19 January, 2026
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~109
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 19.01.2026
+ W.P.(C) 4995/2022
KAILASH MANDAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Adv.
versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL
SECURITY FORCE & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Farman Ali, SPC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition lays a challenge to the final order No.1639 dated
08.03.2020 passed by the Senior Commandant, CISF Unit, Kistwar;
Appellate Order No.4867 dated 23.06.2020 passed by the DIG, CISF
Northern Region-2, Jammu and the Review Order No. 3254 dated 28.4.2021
passed by the Inspector General, CISF Northern Sector, Head Quarters, New
Delhi whereby the petitioner had been punished with a major penalty of
removal from service with immediate effect and the remedy of appeal and
review were answered against the petitioner.
2. The petition has been filed with following prayers:-
“a) To quash and set aside the final order final order No.
1639 dated 8.03.2020 passed by the Sr. Commandant, CISFSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 4995/2022 Page 1 of 27
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
11:16:42
Unit, Kistwar, appellate order No.4867 , dated 23.06.2020
passed by the DIG, CISF Northern Region-2, Jammu and
the revisional order No. 3254 dated 28.4.2021 passed by the
Inspector General , CISF Northern Sector , Head Quarter,
New Delhi whereby the petitioner had been punished with a
major penalty of “Removal From Service with immediate
effect”
b) Pass an order by exonerating the petitioner from all
charges issued to him vide memorandum of charge dated
21.5.2019.
c) Direct the respondents to re-instate the petitioner with all
consequential benefits including back wages, increments,
seniority etc.
d) Direct the respondents to pay cost of this litigation to the
petitioner.”
3. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the petition are that the
petitioner joined the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) as Constable/
GD and completed his initial training at RTC Barwaha on 21.03.2017. After
completing the training, the petitioner was transferred to CISF Unit 7th
Battallion Kistwar. On 21.05.2019, the petitioner was issued with a charge
memorandum stating that, he had given wrong information in Para No 12 of
the Attestation Form, in respect of pendency of criminal case. On
31.05.2019, the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge memo by
denying the allegations. The petitioner in his reply had stated that on account
of an inadvertent error, the mistake happened and the same was
unintentional. The disciplinary authority had appointed Asst. Commandant
Shri. M. Johnson Singh as inquiry officer to conduct the proceedings.
4. The inquiry officer submitted the inquiry report to the disciplinary
authority. The disciplinary authority after agreeing with the findings of the
inquiry officer had on 15.07.2019 furnished a copy of the same to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 4995/2022 Page 2 of 27
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
11:16:42
petitioner, and directed him to submit his response to the inquiry report
within fifteen days. The petitioner submitted his response on 17.7.2019. The
disciplinary proceedings were later kept in abeyance for the confirmation
from the Force Screening committee, Northern Sector. On 06.03.2020, the
confirmation was received resulting in continuance of disciplinary action
against the petitioner. Accordingly, the final order was passed by the
disciplinary authority whereby, the petitioner was removed from service
vide order dated 08.03.2020.
5. The petitioner had, on 30.03.2020, filed an appeal against the final
order passed by the disciplinary authority to the DIG, by raising infirmities
and defects in the inquiry and also by stating that the findings are perverse,
harsh and not in consonance with the settled legal principles. By final order
dated 23.6.2020, the appeal was rejected.
6. On 28.4.2021, the revision petition challenging the order passed by
the Appellate Authority was dismissed by the IG, CISF, Northern Sector,
New Delhi.
THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER
7. Mr. P. Sureshan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondents have taken a mechanical view against the petitioner in the
impugned orders by holding that, while filling up Para No. 12 of the
Attestation Form, the petitioner provided incorrect information regarding a
pending case. The respondents did not conduct the inquiry as contemplated
by the Supreme Court in Avatar Singh vs. Union of India, 2016 (8) SCC
471.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 4995/2022 Page 3 of 27
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
11:16:42
8. He submits that, in the present case, the criminal case pending against
the petitioner was due to political rivalry. The petitioner was never
personally involved in the matter. The petitioner was implicated in a case
that arose from political agitation. The petitioner had consulted his advocate
and signed some documents after learning that he was being called in
connection with a criminal case by the local police. He states that the
petitioner was neither arrested nor provided with copies of any case
documents. Later, the court acquitted the petitioner. He was unaware of the
pending case while filling out the application form, which is why he
provided the information as he did. He also submits that the petitioner did
not have the opportunity to verify the details as he was given the form only
at the training camp and the respondents have failed to adhere to the
guidelines, and thus, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set
aside.
9. He submits that the petitioner‟s acquittal in the criminal case was not
even considered by the departmental authorities while passing the impugned
order. He also submits that the issue raised in the present petition is squarely
covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 11083 of 2022, dated
01.10.2024, titled Bishnu Pratap vs. Union of India Through Ministry of
Home & Ors. He submits that this Court, in view of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC
532, passed the order of reinstatement with consequential benefits, except
the salary for the period the petitioner was not in service.
THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENTS
10. Mr. Farman Ali, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents
submits that the present petition lays a challenge to :-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 4995/2022 Page 4 of 27
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
11:16:42
a) Final Order No. 1639 dated 08.03.2020 passed by the Sr.
Commandant, CISF Unit, Kishtwar.;
b) Appellate Order No. 4867 dated 23.06.2020 passed by
the DIG, CISF, Northern Region-II, Jammu, and;
c) Revisional Order No. 3254 dated 28.04.2021 passed by
the Inspector General, CISF, Northern Sector, New
Delhi, whereby he was inflicted with the major penalty
of “Removal from Service with immediate effect.”
11. He submits that the gravamen of the charge against the petitioner is
his deliberate suppression of material facts concerning his involvement in
Case No.366/12 dated 17.07.2012, registered under Sections 447/341/427/
323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station
Harishchandrapur, District Malda, West Bengal, while filling his Attestation
Form dated 06.04.2017, at the time of entry into CISF service. He also
submits that suppression of material facts regarding criminal antecedents
(irrespective of eventual acquittal) strikes at the root of integrity and renders
an individual unsuitable for service in a disciplined force such as the CISF.
12. He submits that the petitioner was appointed as Constable/GD in
CISF vide appointment letter dated 21.03.2017, and on 03.06.2017 was
directed to report for basic training at RTC Barwaha, Madhya Pradesh. At
the time of appointment, the petitioner was mandatorily required to submit
an Attestation Form, making full and truthful disclosures regarding his
personal particulars, character, and antecedents, including details of any past
or pending criminal cases. In the said form, the petitioner categorically
answered “No” to questions relating to involvement in cases.
13. He submits that, as per the procedure, the Attestation Form was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 4995/2022 Page 5 of 27
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
11:16:42
referred to the District Magistrate, Malda, for verification. The
Superintendent of Police, Malda, vide Memo No. VR-352/C/17 dated
07.12.2018 reported that the petitioner was an accused in Case No. 366/12
dated 17.07.2012, registered under Sections 447/341/427/323/506/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Harishchandrapur. It was further
reported that the petitioner was subsequently acquitted vide Order/Judgment
dated 27.09.2018 passed by 1st Judicial Magistrate, Chanchala, Malda due to
non-appearance of witnesses.
14. He submits that, during scrutiny of the Attestation Form vis-à-vis the
verification report, it was found that the petitioner had deliberately
suppressed his involvement in the criminal case bearing Case No.366/2012
dated 17.07.2012 which ended in Charge Sheet no.532/2012 dated
15.12.2012. Accordingly, a Charge Memorandum dated 21.05.2019, was
issued to petitioner under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001, for suppression
of material facts. The petitioner, vide representation dated 31.05.2019,
denied the charges. The Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were
appointed on 11.07.2019, to conduct a regular departmental enquiry. The
enquiry was held in accordance with Rule 36. The Inquiry Officer, after due
proceedings, found the charge proved.
15. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Standing Screening
Committee (SSC) at CISF Headquarters, New Delhi, which opined that the
petitioner was unsuitable for retention in service given the nature of
suppression. Relying upon the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the SSC‟s
recommendation, the Disciplinary Authority, after due consideration,
imposed the penalty of „Removal from Service with immediate effect‟ vide
order dated 08.03.2020. The petitioner preferred an appeal dated 30.03.2020,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 4995/2022 Page 6 of 27
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
11:16:42
which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 23.06.2020.
16. He submits that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted strictly
in accordance with law, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural
justice. The punishment awarded is proportionate to the gravity of
misconduct, particularly in light of the higher standard of integrity expected
in a uniformed force. He also submits that, during hearing on 22.01.2025,
this Court directed the respondents for verification of the petitioner‟s plea
that, he was unaware of the criminal case proceedings.
17. He submits that, in compliance of the order of this Court dated
22.01.2025, the respondents filed an application dated 05.05.2025 before the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chanchai, District Malda; which issued a
certified reply dated 02.06.2025, confirming that the petitioner had indeed
appeared in G.R. Case No. 3198/2012 (State v. Kailash Mandal & Ors.).
This confirmation belies the petitioner‟s plea of ignorance. In this regard a
Compliance Affidavit dated 11.06.2025, has been filed on record, annexing
the said judicial confirmation. In support of his submission Mr. Ali relies on
the following judgments with the propositions, stated:-
a) Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal, (2013) 9 SCC 363 –
Suppression of involvement in a criminal case, even if followed
by acquittal, constitutes moral turpitude and justifies termination.
b) Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 (3-Judge
Bench) – Non-disclosure or suppression of pending/past criminal
involvement in Attestation Forms renders a candidate unsuitable,
particularly in uniformed forces.
c) Delhi Admn. v. Sushil Kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605 – Suitability in
disciplined forces is judged on antecedents, not on mere
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 4995/2022 Page 7 of 27
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
11:16:42
acquittal/discharge.
d) Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 100 –
Appointment obtained by suppression or fraud is voidable and
confers no equity.
e) Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. v. Anil
Kanwariya, (2021) 10 SCC 136 – Concealment of criminal
antecedents undermines trustworthiness and justifies dismissal.
18. He submits that the principle consistently upheld is that suppression
of material facts in service matters vitiates the very foundation of
employment and disentitles the employee from continuance, particularly in
disciplined/uniformed forces and in the present case, the petitioner
intentionally suppressed his involvement in criminal case while filling his
Attestation Form. His subsequent plea of ignorance stands falsified through
judicial verification. As a member of a uniformed force, the petitioner was
obliged to maintain unimpeachable integrity, which he has failed to do.
19. Mr. Ali justifies the punishment of removal from service is
proportionate to the charge framed and proved. It is necessary to preserve
discipline in the CISF. Any interference would not only erode institutional
integrity but also set a deleterious precedent.
REASONS AND CONCLUSION
20. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the short issue which
arises for consideration is whether the respondents were justified in issuing
memorandum of charge dated 21.05.2019 to the petitioner and whether the
penalty of removal imposed on the petitioner is illegal and needs to be set
aside.
21. We are not in agreement with the submissions made by the Mr
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 4995/2022 Page 8 of 27
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
11:16:42
Sureshan as noted above. This we say so for the reason that there is no
dispute that the Case No. 366/2012, FIR dated 17.07.2012 against the
petitioner under Sections 447/341/427/323/506/34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 was registered in the year 2012. The Attestation Form was filled by the
petitioner on 06.04.2017. The case was decided on 28.09.2018/ 04.10.2018.
So, it follows that on the date when the petitioner had filled the Attestation
Form, the case was pending against the petitioner.On the queries atleast with
regard Serial No. 12(b) & (d) „have you ever been prosecuted‟ and „have
you ever been bound down‟, the answer could not have been “No”.
22. The plea of Mr Sureshan is that the petitioner was not aware of the
criminal case pending against him. Further, it is stated that the petitioner
filled up the Attestation Form while he was in the training camp, moreover,
his Advocate made him sign certain documents. These submissions would
not justify the petitioner filling up the Attestation Form in the manner he has
done.
23. Suffice to state, the information given by the Court of JMFC,
Chanchai, District Malda, that the petitioner had appeared before the Court
in the G.R. Case No. 3198/2012 i.e., criminal case, as per the application for
information under High Court Form No.(M) 56A, proves that the petitioner
had appeared in the criminal proceedings.
24. On a question to the learned counsel for the petitioner; whether the
petitioner was released on bail, his answer is, he is not aware of the same.
Be that as it may, he also qualifies the submission by stating that the bail
was granted by the Police authorities.
25. In any case, it can be inferred that the petitioner was bound down by
the Court/authorities. What is important is the petitioner had concealed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 4995/2022 Page 9 of 27
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
11:16:42
fact that he was never prosecuted in a Court of law.
26. Mr. Sureshan, learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the
judgments in the case of Avatar Singh (supra), Pawan Kumar (supra) and
Bishnu Pratap (supra).
27. Insofar as the judgment relied upon by Mr. Sureshan, in the case of
Pawan Kumar (supra) is concerned, the same is distinguishable on facts,
inasmuch as, in the said case, the petitioner applied for the post in Railway
Protection Force (RPF) vide a notification dated 27.02.2011. While the
appellant was undergoing training, he was discharged from service vide
order dated 24.04.2015. As per the facts, noted before the High Court, an
FIR was registered against the petitioner/appellant on 04.04.2011 and the
charge sheet was filed on 13.04.2011. The competent court of jurisdiction
acquitted the individual on 07.07.2011. The case of the respondents therein
was that the petitioner /appellant did not disclose the same in the attestation
form on 27.05.2014, that he was prosecuted at one stage.
28. The Supreme Court after considering the judgment in the case of
Avatar Singh (supra) and also the law laid down in other judgments has
summarised the conclusion in the following manner:-
“12. Earlier, there has been a conflict of opinion in the
various decisions of Division Benches of this Court
and at the stage when the Division Bench of the High
Court dismissed the writ petition under the impugned
order dated 17th November, 2015, there were
divergent views of this Court and that came to be later
settled by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Avtar
Singh v. Union of India1. While summarizing the
conclusion, this Court has laid down broad guidelines
which has to be taken note of by the
appointing/competent authority in dealing with theSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 4995/2022 Page 10 of 27
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
11:16:42
matters where there is a suppression of material
information or disclosure of false information and after
reconciling the earlier judgments succinctly
summarized the conclusions as under:
xxx xxx xxx
38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to
explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view
of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our
conclusion thus:
38.1. Information given to the employer by a
candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or
pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after
entering into service must be true and there should
be no suppression or false mention of required
information.
38.2. While passing order of termination of services
or cancellation of candidature for giving false
information, the employer may take notice of special
circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such
information.
38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the
government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to
the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
38.4. In case there is suppression or false
information of involvement in a criminal case where
conviction or acquittal had already been recorded
before filling of the application/verification form
and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer,
any of the following recourses appropriate to the
case may be adopted:
38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which
conviction had been recorded, such as shouting
slogans at young age or for a petty offence which
if disclosed would not have rendered an
incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer
may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of
fact or false information by condoning the lapse.
38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded inSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 4995/2022 Page 11 of 27
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
11:16:42
case which is not trivial in nature, employer may
cancel candidature or terminate services of the
employee.
38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a
case involving moral turpitude or offence of
heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it
is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of
reasonable doubt has been given, the employer
may consider all relevant facts available as to
antecedents, and may take appropriate decision
as to the continuance of the employee.
38.5. In a case where the employee has made
declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case,
the employer still has the right to consider
antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the
candidate.
38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared
in character verification form regarding pendency of
a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts
and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may
appoint the candidate subject to decision of such
case.
38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with
respect to multiple pending cases such false
information by itself will assume significance and an
employer may pass appropriate order cancelling
candidature or terminating services as appointment
of a person against whom multiple criminal cases
were pending may not be proper.
38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to
the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it
may have adverse impact and the appointing
authority would take decision after considering the
seriousness of the crime.
38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service,
holding departmental enquiry would be necessary
before passing order of termination/removal or
dismissal on the ground of suppression or submittingSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 4995/2022 Page 12 of 27
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
11:16:42
false information in verification form.
38.10. For determining suppression or false
information attestation/verification form has to be
specific, not vague. Only such information which
was required to be specifically mentioned has to be
disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant
comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be
considered in an objective manner while addressing
the question of fitness. However, in such cases
action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or
submitting false information as to a fact which was
not even asked for.
38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio
veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be
attributable to him.”
29. In Bishnu Pratap (supra), the facts as noted from the case is that the
petitioner was accused in the FIR for an incident on 14.05.2018 and was
acquitted of the charges vide judgment dated 10.06.2019. This Court noted
that the criminal case against the petitioner was with respect to a fight
between two youths in the Village and was acquitted.
30. The counsel for the respondents has relied upon the latest judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India
and Others, (2023) 7 SCC 536, wherein, the Supreme Court while referring
to all the judgments which have been relied upon by the counsel for the
petitioner in paragraphs 93, 101, 102 and 104, held that:-
“93. In such circumstances, we undertook some
exercise to shortlist the broad principles of law which
should be made applicable to the litigations of the
present nature. The principles are as follows:
93.1. Each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by
the public employer concerned, through its designated
officials — more so, in the case of recruitment for theSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 4995/2022 Page 13 of 27
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
11:16:42
Police Force, who are under a duty to maintain order,
and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire
public confidence is a bulwark to society’s security.
(See Raj Kumar [State v. Raj Kumar, (2021) 8 SCC
347 : (2021) 2 SCC (L&S) 745] )
93.2. Even in a case where the employee has made
declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded
criminal case, the employer still has the right to
consider the antecedents, and cannot be compelled to
appoint the candidate. The acquittal in a criminal case
would not automatically entitle a candidate for
appointment to the post. It would be still open to the
employer to consider the antecedents and examine
whether the candidate concerned is suitable and fit for
appointment to the post.
93.3. The suppression of material information and
making a false statement in the verification form
relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction, etc. has a
clear bearing on the character, conduct and
antecedents of the employee. If it is found that the
employee had suppressed or given false information in
regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or
suitability to the post, he can be terminated from
service.
93.4. The generalisations about the youth, career
prospects and age of the candidates leading to
condonation of the offenders’ conduct, should not enter
the judicial verdict and should be avoided.
93.5. The Court should inquire whether the authority
concerned whose action is being challenged acted
mala fide.
93.6. Is there any element of bias in the decision of the
authority?
93.7. Whether the procedure of inquiry adopted by the
authority concerned was fair and reasonable?
xxx xxx xxx
101. Indisputably, Satish Chandra Yadav was still
under probation at the time his services had beenSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 4995/2022 Page 14 of 27
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
11:16:42
terminated. It is also apparent from the record that
Satish Chandra Yadav had been given appointment on
probation subject to the verification of facts given in
the verification form. To our mind, therefore, if an
enquiry revealed that the facts given were wrong, the
respondent herein was at liberty to dispense with the
services of the appellant Satish Chandra Yadav as the
question of any stigma and penal consequences at this
stage would not arise. It bears repetition that what has
led to the termination of the services of the appellant
Satish Chandra Yadav is not his involvement in the
criminal case which was then pending, and in which he
had been acquitted subsequently but the fact that he
had withheld relevant information while filling in the
verification form. He could be said to have exhibited or
displayed such a tendency which shook the confidence
of the respondent.
102. Administrative law has traditionally approached
the review of decisions classified as discretionary
separately from those seen as involving the
interpretation of rules of law. The rule has been that
the decisions classified as discretionary may only be
reviewed on limited grounds such as the bad faith of
decision-makers, the exercise of discretion for an
improper purpose, and the use of irrelevant
considerations. A general doctrine of
“unreasonableness” has also sometimes been applied
to the discretionary decisions. In our opinion, these
doctrines incorporate two central ideas — those
discretionary decisions, like all other administrative
decisions, must be made within the bounds of the
jurisdiction conferred by the statutory rules, but that
considerable deference will be given to the decision-
makers by the courts in reviewing the exercise of that
discretion and determining the scope of the decision-
makers’ jurisdiction. These doctrines recognise that it
is the intention of a legislature, when using statutory
language that confers broad choices on the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 4995/2022 Page 15 of 27
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
11:16:42
administrative agencies, that courts should not lightly
interfere with such decisions, and should give
considerable respect to the decision-makers when
reviewing the manner in which discretion was
exercised. However, discretion must still be exercised
in a manner that is within a reasonable interpretation
of the margin of manoeuvre contemplated by the
legislature, in accordance with the principles of the
rule of law.
xxx xxx xxx
104. We find that the observations in the aforesaid case
are fully applicable to the appeal filed by Satish
Chandra Yadav. We are of the opinion that it was a
deliberate attempt on the part of the appellant Satish
Chandra Yadav to withhold the relevant information
and it is this omission which has led to the termination
of his service during the probation period.”
31. In the present case, a charge-sheet was issued for concealment of
information in the Attestation Form resulting in the charges being proved
followed by the imposition of penalty of removal from service.
32. On the issue of concealment of information by candidate/employee,
the Supreme Court has dealt with it in the case of Union of India & Others
v. Shishupal @ Shiv Pal, 2024 INSC 550. In the said case, the respondent
was issued an appointment order. In the verification roll, Column No.12
directs the respondent/employee to state in clear terms whether the person
has been arrested or prosecuted or whether any case was pending against
him in any Court of law at the time of filling up the form. The answer to a
series of questions on the same lines was required to be given in a „Yes‟ or
„No‟ format while again cautioning the employee that furnishing of any false
information or suppression of any factual information would be a
disqualification and likely to render the employee unfit for employment
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 4995/2022 Page 16 of 27
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
11:16:42
under the government. A warning was also issued that if any false
information was furnished or there was suppression of any factual
information that came to the notice of the employer during the course of
service of a person, his services would liable to be terminated.
33. The respondent/employee answered in negative to all the questions
posed in column no.12 of the verification roll. In the verification process,
the District Magistrate of Mainpuri, UP confirmed that a criminal case had
been registered against the employee and the matter was pending before the
Court. Thereafter, domestic enquiry proceedings were held and later, by a
disciplinary authority and appellate authority agreed with the finding of the
authorities and an order was passed removing the employee/respondent from
the service.
34. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent / employee filed a writ
petition before the High Court, which was allowed by the learned Single
Judge by holding that there are no criminal cases pending against him. An
intra Court appeal was also dismissed.
35. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the appellants
were justified in terminating the services of the respondent on the post of
Constable (GD) in the CRPF after conducting a departmental inquiry against
him on receiving information that he had deliberately failed to reveal in his
Verification Roll that two criminal cases were pending against him.
36. The Supreme Court noted that the employee was taken into judicial
custody and was granted bail by the trial Court on 04.10.2011. On
13.11.2013, charges were framed against the respondent and the other co-
accused and the matter was set down to trial. All the incidents relating to
registration of the FIR, detention of the respondent, his having applied for
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 4995/2022 Page 17 of 27
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
11:16:42
bail while in judicial custody and granted bail vide order dated 04.10.2011
had transpired much before he was called upon by the appellants to fill up
the Verification Roll, i.e., well before 30.11.2011. Despite that the
respondent choose not to disclose the information pertaining to the cases to
the appellants and replied in the negative the specific queries posed to him in
the verification roll, as have been extracted above.
37. The issue before the Supreme Court was not the termination of
service of the employee because of the pendency of criminal case or its
outcome, but on the failure on the part of the respondent to have truthfully
disclosed in the verification roll that criminal cases were pending against
him at the relevant point in time.
38. The Court while examining the question of suppression of material
information, submission of false information in the verification roll by an
aspirant of the government job, referred to Avatar Singh(supra) noted that
the yardstick to be applied for the verification of the disclosure made by a
candidate to the employer so as to decide as to whether the applicant could
be fit for appointment or not, and relied upon paragraphs no.38 to 38.10.
39. The Supreme Court held that the purpose of seeking relevant
information with respect to antecedents of a candidate/employee is to enable
the employer to ascertain the suitability of the candidate/employee for the
subject post. The Supreme Court whilst dealing with the issue has also
referred to its judgment in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh and
Others v. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 INSC 837 , wherein, the Court has held
that:-
“16. As can be discerned from the above decision, an
employer has the discretion to terminate or condone anSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 4995/2022 Page 18 of 27
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
11:16:42
omission in the disclosure made by a candidate. While
doing so, the employer must act with prudence, keep in mind
the nature of the post and the duties required to be
discharged. Higher the post, more stringent ought to be the
standards to be applied. Even if a truthful disclosure has
been made, the employer is well within its right to examine
the fitness of a candidate and in a concluded criminal case,
keep in mind the nature of the offence and verify whether
the acquittal is honourable or benefit has been extended on
technical reasons. If the employer arrives at a conclusion
that the incumbent is of a suspect character or unfit for the
post, he may not be appointed or continued in service.”
40. The Supreme Court also noted that, in its earlier decision in the case
of Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of India and Others, (2010) 14 SCC 103,
with regard to consequences of examining the information received from a
candidate with respect to his/her antecedents regarding suitability for the
post has held that:-
“15. When an employee or a prospective employee declares
in a verification form, answers to the queries relating to
character and antecedents, the verification thereof can
therefore lead to any of the following consequences:
(a) & (b)xxx
(c) Where the declarant has answered the questions in
the negative and on verification it is found that the
answers were false, the employer may refuse to employ
the declarant (or discharge him, if already employed),
even if the declarant had been cleared of the charges or
is acquitted. This is because when there is suppression or
non-disclosure of material information bearing on his
character, that itself becomes a reason for not employing
the declarant.
(d) xxx”
41. The Supreme Court also relying on the case of Rajasthan Rajya
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 4995/2022 Page 19 of 27
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
11:16:42
Vidhut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Another v. Anil Kanwaria, (2011) 10
SCC 136, wherein it held that, even where there was a subsequent acquittal,
an employee cannot claim appointment as a matter of right having furnished
false information or having indulged in suppression of material facts relating
to a pending criminal case, has in paragraph no.14 held that:-
“14. The issue/question may be considered from another
angle, from the employer’s point of view. The question is not
about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of
trivial nature and whether he has been subsequently
acquitted or not. The question is about the credibility and/or
trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage
of the employment i.e. while submitting the declaration/
verification and/or applying for a post made false
declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressing
material fact of having involved in a criminal case. If the
correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might
not have appointed him. Then the question is of trust.
Therefore, in such a situation, where the employer feels that
an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false
statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or
suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be
continued in service because such an employee cannot be
relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to
continue such an employee. The choice/option whether to
continue or not to continue such an employee always must
be given to the employer. At the cost of repetition, it is
observed and as observed hereinabove in catena of decision
such an employee cannot claim the appointment and/or
continue to be in service as a matter of right.”
(emphasis supplied)
42. The Supreme Court on the observation made by the learned Single
Judge that the respondent was a young man and his discretion ought to be
condoned by imposing a minor penalty than removing him from service,
was not in agreement and noted that the answer lies in the observation made
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 4995/2022 Page 20 of 27
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
11:16:42
in Bhupender Yadav (supra), wherein the Court held that:
“24……The yardstick to be applied in cases where the
appointment sought relates to a Law Enforcement Agency,
ought to be much more stringent than those applied to a
routine vacancy. 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 ammunitions,
apprehending suspected criminals and protecting the life
and property of the public at large. Therefore, the standard
of rectitude to be applied to any person seeking appointment
in a Law Enforcement Agency must always be higher and
more rigourous for the simple reason that possession of a
higher moral conduct is one of the basic requirements for
appointment to a post as sensitive as that in the police
service.”
43. In the case of Ex-Const/DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union of
India & Others, (2023) 11 SCC 159, the Supreme Court held that
suppression of information pertaining to pendency of criminal litigation in
character certificate at the time of submitting verification thereof, in
appointment/enrolment process and removal of appellant was justified and
suppression of criminal litigation at time of enrolment in force amounted to
grave misconduct justifying his removal from disciplined police force which
was deployed in sensitive sectors. The Court further held that:-
“11. It may be noted that even after the guiding principles
laid down in the case of Avtar Singh by the three-judge
Bench, divergent views were expressed by the various
benches of this Court. Therefore, this Court in case of
Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India & Others.2 ,
after taking into consideration the inconsistent views taken
in the cases of Union of India & Ors. Vs Methu Meda3 ;
Union of India vs. Dilip Kumar Mallick4 ; Pawan KumarSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 4995/2022 Page 21 of 27
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
11:16:42
vs. Union of India & Anr.5 ; Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut
Prasaran Nigam Limited & Anr. vs. Anil Kanwariya6 ;
Mohammed Imran Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others7 ;
etc., further laid down following principles:
“92. The only reason to refer to and look into the
various decisions rendered by this Court as above
over a period of time is that the principles of law laid
therein governing the subject are bit inconsistent.
Even after, the larger Bench decision in the case of
Avtar Singh (supra) different courts have enunciated
different principles.
93. In such circumstances, we undertook some
exercise to shortlist the broad principles of law
which should be made applicable to the litigations of
the present nature. The principles are as follows:
a) Each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by the
public employer concerned, through its designated
officials-more so, in the case of recruitment for the
police force, who are under a duty to maintain order,
and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire
public confidence is a bulwark to society’s security.
[See Raj Kumar (supra)]
b) Even in a case where the employee has made
declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded
criminal case, the employer still has the right to
consider the antecedents, and cannot be compelled
to appoint the candidate. The acquittal in a criminal
case would not automatically entitle a candidate for
appointment to the post. It would be still open to the
employer to consider the antecedents and examine
whether the candidate concerned is suitable and fit
for appointment to the post.
c) The suppression of material information and
making a false statement in the verification Form
relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has a
clear bearing on the character, conduct and
antecedents of the employee. If it is found that the
employee had suppressed or given false informationSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 4995/2022 Page 22 of 27
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
11:16:42
in regard to the matters having a bearing on his
fitness or suitability to the post, he can be terminated
from service.
d) The generalisations about the youth, career
prospects and age of the candidates leading to
condonation of the offenders’ conduct, should not
enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided.
e) The Court should inquire whether the Authority
concerned whose action is being challenged acted
mala fide.
f) Is there any element of bias in the decision of the
Authority?
g) Whether the procedure of inquiry adopted by the
Authority concerned was fair and reasonable?”
12. Having regard to the guiding principles, laid down in
case of Avtar Singh (supra) and in case of Satish Chandra
Yadav (supra), this Court has no hesitation in holding that
the Single Bench of the High Court had committed an error
in interfering with the order passed by the respondents-
authorities. The respondents-authorities had after taking
into consideration the decision in case of Avtar Singh
terminated the services of the petitioner holding inter-alia
that while the petitioner was appointed in CISF, a criminal
case was pending against him at the time of his enrolment
in the force, but he did not reveal the same and that there
was deliberate suppression of facts which was an
aggravating circumstance. It was also held that CISF being
an armed force of Union of India, is deployed in sensitive
sectors such as airports, ports, department of atomic
energy, department of space, metro, power and steel, for
internal security duty etc., and therefore, the force
personnel are required to maintain discipline of the highest
order; and that the involvement of the petitioner in such
grave offences debarred him from the appointment. Such a
well-reasoned and well considered decision of the
respondent-authorities should not have been interfered by
the Single Bench in exercise of its powers under Article 226
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 4995/2022 Page 23 of 27
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
11:16:42
of the Constitution, more particularly when there were no
allegations of malafides or of non-observance of rules of
natural justice or of breach of statutory rules were
attributed against the respondent authorities.”
44. This Court in the case of Nomil Rana v. Union of India & Ors,
2024:DHC:1614-DB has in paragraphs 34, 37 and 38 as under:-
“34. The law in this regard is well settled and as such, the
issue in hand is squarely covered by the judgments of the
Supreme Court. It is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut
Prasaran Nigam Limited and Another v. Anil Kanwariya,
(2021) 10 SCC 136, post Avtar Singh (supra), wherein in
paragraphs 14 and 15, it has been held as under:
“14. The issue/question may be considered from
another angle, from the employer’s point of view. The
question is not about whether an employee was
involved in a dispute of trivial nature and whether he
has been subsequently acquitted or not. The question is
about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an
employee who at the initial stage of the employment i.e.
while submitting the declaration/verification and/or
applying for a post made false declaration and/or not
disclosing and/or suppressing material fact of having
involved in a criminal case. If the correct facts would
have been disclosed, the employer might not have
appointed him. Then the question is of trust. Therefore,
in such a situation, where the employer feels that an
employee who at the initial stage itself has made a
false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts
and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he
cannot be continued in service because such an
employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the
employer cannot be forced to continue such an
employee. The choice/option whether to continue or
not to continue such an employee always must be given
to the employer. At the cost of repetition, it is observedSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 4995/2022 Page 24 of 27
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
11:16:42
and as observed hereinabove in catena of decision
such an employee cannot claim the appointment and/or
continue to be in service as a matter of right. 15. In
view of the aforestated facts and circumstances of the
case, both, the learned Division Bench as well as the
learned Single Judge have clearly erred in quashing
and setting aside the order of termination terminating
the services of the respondent on the ground of having
obtained an appointment by suppressing material fact
and filing a false declaration. The order of
reinstatement is wholly untenable and unjustified.”
xxxx xxxx xxxx
37. It thus, necessarily follows that the respondents are
justified in passing the impugned order of termination on
the ground of suppression of material information by the
petitioner in the Attestation Form.
38. It also follows that the suppression of the material
information regarding pendency of Criminal Case by the
petitioner, who is seeking appointment to a police post
wherein he is required to maintain public order, surely,
has a bearing on his suitability to hold the post in
question. That apart, it is also not the case of the
petitioner that the termination has been actuated by mala
fide on the part of the respondents‟ Force. Therefore, the
action of the respondents terminating the services of the
petitioner on the ground of suppression of material
information regarding pendency of the Criminal Case in
the Attestation Form, is justified. ”
(Emphasis supplied)
45. Suffice to state the law is settled to the extent that, if there is a shade
of evidence to prove the charge, the Court will not interfere. In fact, there is
conclusive evidence against the petitioner on the concealment of the
criminal case in the Attestation Form at the time of his joining the force. At
the time the petitioner joined the respondents, he was an accused in criminal
proceedings. The plea that the petitioner was unaware of the pending case
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 4995/2022 Page 25 of 27
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
11:16:42
against him does not impress us, more so, where the petitioner/counsel had
appeared, as per High Court Form No.(M) 56A.
46. The petitioner was under bail/on bail bond at the time of his training
and also, while filing his Attestation Form, the petitioner had answered „No‟
against query 12(i) „Is any case pending against you in any Court of Law at
the time of filling up this attestation form?‟. The Attestation Form also state
that, if false information has been furnished or that there has been
suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form which comes
to notice at any time during the service of a person, his services would liable
to be terminated.
47. The reliance placed by Mr Sureshan on the judgments of Pawan
Kumar (supra) and Bishnu Pratap (supra) would not come to the aid of the
petitioner, inasmuch as, in the present petition, as read out from the acquittal
judgment, the petitioner was on bail bond, which fact was concealed from
the respondents. The judgments are clearly distinguishable, as in the case in
hand, the respondents till the stage of the Revisional Authority has
considered the conclusion drawn against the petitioner in the departmental
enquiry, resulting in the penalty of removal from service. So, three
authorities have applied their mind on the action against the petitioner.
48. So it follows the conclusion drawn by the Supreme Court in catena of
judgments is clear that the scope of judicial review is very limited.
49. We, in view of the above cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over the
conclusion drawn by the Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority, Appellate
Authority and the Revisional Authority. It is not a case wherein,
arbitrariness or violation of principles of natural justice has been alleged by
the petitioner. We also note that three authorities have considered the gravity
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 4995/2022 Page 26 of 27
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
11:16:42
of the charges framed and proved against the petitioner.
50. In the facts of this case, we are of the view that the impugned action
of the respondents cannot be faulted. The petition being devoid of merits is
dismissed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
JANUARY 19, 2026/sr
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP W.P.(C) 4995/2022 Page 27 of 27
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.02.2026
11:16:42