# The Director General, R.P.F. Railway Board New Delhi & Ors v. Rajiv Kumar Singh

- **Citation:** Special Appeal No. 65 of 2020
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-26
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 65 of 2020
- **Bench:** Biswanath Somadder, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-director-general-r-p-f-railway-board-new-delhi-ors-v-rajiv-kumar-singh-46253
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law-Railway Protection Force
Rules, 1987 - Section 21 -Intra-Court
Special Appeal - - made by the Central
Government
in
exercise
of
powers
conferred by of the Railway Protection
Force Act, 1957 which are referrable to
subject mentioned under Entry 22 of List 1
of the Seventh Schedule - special appeal
against any revisional or appellate order
passed under the aforesaid Act would be
maintainable

The appellate and revisional jurisdiction having
thus been exercised under a Central Act in
respect of a matter enumerated under the
Union List and not in respect of a matter under
the State list or the Concurrent List of the
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India,
the exclusion under Chapter VIII Rule 5 would
not be attracted and therefore special appeal
would be maintainable. (para 12)

(B) Civil Law-Railway Protection Force
Rules, 1987-- Rule 52 -Concealment of
facts in declaration form - clear obligation
upon a prospective candidate to make a
candid and truthful disclosure in respect
of
the
information
sought
in
the
verification form - non disclosure or
concealment of the material facts would
have a direct link to the suitability of the
person for being appointed in service

As per Rule 52, a prospective employee may be
refused
employment
on
the
ground
of
unsatisfactory
antecedents
and
character.
Suppression of material information or making a
false statement in reply to specific queries in the
3-5 All. The Director General, R.P.F. Railway Board New Delhi & Ors. Vs. Rajiv Kumar Singh 875
verification form which may lead to an inference
of a dubious conduct and absence of a
character of the prospective employee at the
time of making the declaration may therefore
also be held making him unsuitable for being
appointed as a member of the force. (Para 37)

Special Appeal Allowed. (E-10)

List of cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,803 of 50,560. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39803 for what follows._

874 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
each other and because of this, the
petitioner gave a loan to the private
respondent, therefore, the dispute is purely
of civil nature. Hence, no offence under
Section 406 is made out. Criminal
proceedings cannot be invoked as a short
cut for the purely civil remedies as the
latter is more time consuming.

11. As regards the other allegation
with regard to Sections 504, 506 I.P.C.,
there
is
a
bald
assertion
in
the
complaint that the petitioner on being
demanded his money was threatened,
however,
in
support
thereof,
the
statement under Sections 200 and 202
CrPC recorded by the trial court have
not been filed with the present petition.
It appears to be an effort on the part of
the petitioner to settle civil dispute and
claims which do not involve any
criminal offence by applying pressure
through criminal prosecution.

12. In view of the above, this
Court does not find any fault with the
orders impugned in the present petition.
No case is made out to invoke the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction under
Section 482 CrPC.

13. The petition fails and is
accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is
at liberty to avail other remedies,
provided under law, for recovery of his
money.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A874
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BISWANATH SOMADDER, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.
Special Appeal No. 65 of 2020

The Director General, R.P.F. Railway Board
New Delhi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Rajiv Kumar Singh ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Praveen Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vijay Gautam, Sri Ambrish Chatterji

(A) Civil Law-Railway Protection Force
Rules, 1987 - Section 21 -Intra-Court
Special Appeal - - made by the Central
Government
in
exercise
of
powers
conferred by of the Railway Protection
Force Act, 1957 which are referrable to
subject mentioned under Entry 22 of List 1
of the Seventh Schedule - special appeal
against any revisional or appellate order
passed under the aforesaid Act would be
maintainable

The appellate and revisional jurisdiction having
thus been exercised under a Central Act in
respect of a matter enumerated under the
Union List and not in respect of a matter under
the State list or the Concurrent List of the
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India,
the exclusion under Chapter VIII Rule 5 would
not be attracted and therefore special appeal
would be maintainable. (para 12)

(B) Civil Law-Railway Protection Force
Rules, 1987-- Rule 52 -Concealment of
facts in declaration form - clear obligation
upon a prospective candidate to make a
candid and truthful disclosure in respect
of
the
information
sought
in
the
verification form - non disclosure or
concealment of the material facts would
have a direct link to the suitability of the
person for being appointed in service

As per Rule 52, a prospective employee may be
refused
employment
on
the
ground
of
unsatisfactory
antecedents
and
character.
Suppression of material information or making a
false statement in reply to specific queries in the
3-5 All. The Director General, R.P.F. Railway Board New Delhi & Ors. Vs. Rajiv Kumar Singh 875
verification form which may lead to an inference
of a dubious conduct and absence of a
character of the prospective employee at the
time of making the declaration may therefore
also be held making him unsuitable for being
appointed as a member of the force. (Para 37)

Special Appeal Allowed. (E-10)

List of cases cited:

1. Vajara Yojna Seed Farm & ors. Vs. Presiding
Officer, Labour Court II & ors. (2003) 1 UPLBEC
496

2. Sheet Gupta Vs. St. of U.P. & ors. AIR 2010
All 46 (FB)

3. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kanpur Vs. UOI
& ors. 1997 (3) A.W.C. 1597

4. Director General, C.R.P.F. Vs. Lalji Pandey
(2010) 2 UPLBEC 1589

5. Jainendra Singh Vs. St. of U.P. through
Principal Secretary, Home & ors. (2012) 8 SCC
748

6. Avatar Singh Vs. UOI and ors. 2016 98) SCC
471 (followed)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. The present special appeal has been
filed against the judgment and order dated
21.10.2019 passed in Writ-A No. 37611 of
2002 (Rajiv Kumar Singh Vs. Director
General/R.P.F. and others) whereby the writ
petition has been allowed and the orders
dated
22.07.2002,
31.5.2001
and
12.4.2001, which were under challenge
therein, have been set aside.

2. A preliminary objection has been
raised by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondent-petitioner that
the special appeal is not maintainable as per
the provisions contained under Chapter
VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court
Rules
(Rules
of
the
Court,
1952)1
inasmuch as the writ petition had been filed
seeking
to
challenge
the
order
of
termination against the petitioner as also
the orders passed in appeal and revision
under the statutory rules.

3. The provision with regard to filing
of an intra-court appeal under the Rules of
the Court, 1952, is contained under Chapter
VIII Rule 5 of the aforementioned Rules,
and the same is as follows :-

"5. Special appeal :- An appeal
shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not
being a judgment passed in the exercise of
Appellate Jurisdiction) in respect of a
decree or order made by a Court subject to
the Superintendence of the Court and not
being an order made in the exercise of
revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of
its power of Superintendence or in the
exercise of criminal jurisdiction or in the
exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article
226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in
respect of any judgment, order or award--
(a) of a tribunal, Court or statutory
arbitrator made or purported to be made in
the exercise or purported exercise of
jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or
under any Central Act, with respect to any
of the matters enumerated in the State List
or the Concurrent List in the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution or (b) of the
Government or any Officer or authority,
made or purported to be made in the
exercise or purported exercise of Appellate
or Revisional Jurisdiction under any such
Act of one Judge."

4. The language under Rule 5,
referred to above, is couched in a manner
whereunder an intra-court appeal would not
lie in certain specified cases. The Rule
876 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
provides for certain specified exclusions
whereunder a special appeal would not lie
from a judgment of one judge of this Court.
The exclusions under Chapter VIII Rule 5
of the Rules of the Court, 1952 were
considered in the case of Vajara Yojna
Seed Farm and Ors. Vs. Presiding
Officer, Labour Court II and Ors.2 , and
it was held as under :-

"64. From the above discussions
and looking into the provisions of U.P. Act
No. 14 of 1962 as amended by Amendment
Act of 1981 and Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the
Rules of the Court, 1952, special appeal is
excluded from a judgment of one Judge of
this Court in following categories :-

(i) Judgment of one Judge passed
in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in
respect of a decree or order made by a
Court subject to the Superintendence of the
Court.

(ii) Judgment of one Judge in the
exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

(iii) Judgment of one Judge made
in
the
exercise
of
its
power
of
Superintendence.

(iv) Judgment of one Judge made
in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction.

(v) Judgment of order of one
Judge made in the exercise of jurisdiction
conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of
the Constitution in respect of any judgment,
order or award of a Tribunal, Court or
Statutory Arbitrator made or purported to
be more in the exercise or purported
exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar
Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with
respect to any of the matters enumerated in
State List or Concurrent List.

(vi) Judgment or order of one
Judge made in exercise of jurisdiction
conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of
the Constitution in respect of any judgment,
order or award by the Court or any officer
or authority made or purported to be made
in the exercise or purported exercise of
appellate or revisional jurisdiction under
any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central
Act."

5. The issue of maintainability of a
special appeal under the aforementioned
Rule again came up for consideration
before a Full Bench of this Court in Sheet
Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others3, and
it was stated thus:-

"15. Having given our anxious
consideration to the various plea raised by
the learned counsel for the parties, we find
that from the perusal of Chapter VIII Rule
5 of the Rules a special appeal shall lie
before this Court from the judgment passed
by one Judge of the Court. However, such
special appeal will not lie in the following
circumstances:

1. The judgment passed by one
Judge
in
the
exercise
of
appellate
jurisdiction, in respect of a decree or order
made
by
a
Court
subject
to
the
Superintendence of the Court;

2. the order made by one Judge in
the exercise of revisional jurisdiction;

3 the order made by one Judge in
the
exercise
of
the
power
of
Superintendence of the High Court;

4. the order made by one Judge in
the exercise of criminal jurisdiction;

5. the order made by one Judge in
the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by
Article 226 or Article 227 of the
Constitution of India in respect of any
judgment, order or award by

(i) the tribunal,

(ii) Court or

(iii) statutory arbitrator

made or purported to be made in
the exercise or purported exercise of
jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or
3-5 All. The Director General, R.P.F. Railway Board New Delhi & Ors. Vs. Rajiv Kumar Singh 877
under any Central Act, with respect to any
of the matters enumerated in the State List
or the Concurrent List in the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution of India;

6. the order made by one Judge
in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by
Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of
India in respect of any judgment, order or
award of

(i) the Government or

(ii) any officer or

(iii) authority,

made or purported to be made in
the exercise or purported exercise of
appellate or revisional jurisdiction under
any such Act, i.e. under any Uttar Pradesh
Act or under any Central Act, with respect
to any of the matters enumerated in the
State List or the Concurrent List in the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of
India. "

6. The various exclusions provided
for under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII
whereunder an intra-court appeal would not
lie would therefore include a case where an
appeal is sought to be preferred against an
order made by one judge in exercise of
jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or 227
of the Constitution of India in respect of
any judgment, order or award of the
government or any officer or authority
made or purported to be made in the
exercise or purported exercise of appellate
or revisional jurisdiction under any Uttar
Pradesh Act or any Central Act, with
respect to any of the matters enumerated in
the State List or the Concurrent List in the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of
India.

7. The question of maintainability of a
special appeal under the Rules of the Court,
1952, in the context of a judgment rendered
by a Single Judge in exercise of jurisdiction
conferred by Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution in respect of judgment, order
or award of a tribunal, Court or statutory
arbitrator made in exerecise of jurisdiction
under Uttar Pradesh or Central Act with
respect to a matter enumerated in the Union
List earlier came up for consideration in the
case of Oriental Bank of Commerce,
Kanpur Vs. Union of India (UOI) and
Ors.4, and it was stated as follows:-

"4. Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the
High Court Rules, on the interpretation of
which depends the decision on the point,
reads as follows:

5. Special Appeal -- An appeal
shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not
being a judgment passed in the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction) in respect of a decree
or order made by a Court subject to the
superintendence of the Court and not being
an order made in the exercise of revisional
jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power
of superintendence or in the exercise of
criminal jurisdiction or in the exercise of
jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or
Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of
any judgment, order or award -- (a) of a
Tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made
or purported to be made in the exercise or
purported exercise of jurisdiction under any
Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act,
with respect to any of the matters
enumerated, in the State List or the
Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to
the Constitution, or (b) of the Government
or any Officer or authority, made or
purported to be made in the exercise or
purported
exercise
of
appellate
or
revisional jurisdiction under any such Act
of one Judge.

On a plain reading of the above
provision, it is clear that if the judgment of
the learned single Judge has been passed in
exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by
878 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Article 226 or Article 227 of the
Constitution in respect of any judgment,
order or award of a Tribunal, Court or
statutory arbitrator made or purported to be
made in the exercise or purported exercise
of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act
or under any Central Act with respect to
any of the matters enumerated in the State
List or the Concurrent List of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution or of the
Government or any officer or authority
made or purported to be made in the
exercise or purported exercise of appellate
or revisional jurisdiction under any such
Act, then no appeal shall lie against the
judgement of the single Judge. If on the
other hand, the judgment of the single
Judge is rendered with respect to any
matter enumerated in the Union List, then
an appeal may be filed against the
judgment. " (emphasis supplied)

8. In a similar set of facts, as in the
present case, whereunder objection was
raised against maintainability of a special
appeal challenging the judgment rendered
by a Single Judge whereby an order of
punishment and also the appellate and
revisional orders thereagainst under the
Cental Reserve Police Force Act, 1949,
were questioned, a Division Bench of this
Court in the Director General, C.R.P.F.
Vs. Lalji Pandey5, repelled the objection
and held the special appeal maintainable
after taking into consideration that the
subject matter in question was referable to
armed forces of Union which was under the
Union List. The observations made in the
judgment are as follows :-

"11. From bare perusal of the above
decision it is very much clear that no special
appeal shall lie against the order made by
Single Judge in exercise of jurisdiction
conferred by Article 226 or 227 of the
Constitution of India in respect of any
judgment, order or award of the government or
any officer or any authority made or purported
to be made in the exercise or purported exercise
of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any
such Act i.e., under any Uttar Pradesh Act or
under any Central Act, with respect to any of
the matters enumerated in the State List or the
Concurrent List in the 7th Schedule to the
Constitution of India. Meaning thereby that in
case the order under challenge in writ
jurisdiction before the learned Single Judge was
the order passed by the Government or any
officer or any authority made or purported to be
made in the exercise or purported exercise of
appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any
such Central Act with respect to any of the
matters enumerated in the Union List then the
special appeal would be maintainable.

12. It is relevant to notice here that
the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 has
been enacted in exercise of powers conferred to
the Central Government under Paragraph 1 of
List-I of 7th Schedule to the Government of
India Act, 1935, which is presently Entry-2,
List-I of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of
India.

Entry 2 of List-I (Union List) of 7th
Schedule provides as under:

Naval, military and air force; any
other armed forces of the Union.

13. In the case of Akhilesh Prasad
v. Union Territory of Mizoram, AIR 1981
Supreme Court 806, it has been held that
any other armed force of the Union
includes the Central Reserve Police Force.
Therefore, it can easily be concluded that
the Central Reserve Police Force is covered
under any other armed forces of the Union
as provided in Entry 2, List-I (Union List)
of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of
India.

14. In view of above, the present
special appeal is maintainable and the
preliminary
objection
raised
by
the
3-5 All. The Director General, R.P.F. Railway Board New Delhi & Ors. Vs. Rajiv Kumar Singh 879
respondent having no legal force is hereby
rejected."

9. It is therefore seen that in a case,
where the order under challenge before
learned Single Judge exercising jurisdiction
conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, is in respect of
any judgment, order or award by a Court or
any officer or authority made or purported
to be made in the exercise or purported
exercise
of
appellate
or
revisional
jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh or
under any Central Act with respect to any
of the matters enumerated in the Union List
under
the
Seventh Schedule
to
the
Constitution of India, a special appeal
under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of
the Court, 1952, would lie.

10. In the case at hand, the appellate
and revisional orders have been passed by
authorities under the provisions of the
Railway Protection Force Rules,19876.

11. The Rules 1987 have been made
by the Central Government in exercise of
powers conferred by Section 21 of the Act,
1957. The Railway Protection Force Act
and the Rules made thereunder would be
referable to the subject matter under Entry
22 of List 1 of the Seventh Schedule, which
reads as follows :-

"22. Railways".

12. The appellate and revisional
jurisdiction having thus been exercised
under a Central Act in respect of a matter
enumerated under the Union List and not in
respect of a matter under the State List or
the Concurrent List of the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution of India, the
exclusion under Chapter VIII Rule 5 would
not be attracted, and therefore the special
appeal would be maintainable, and the
objections raised by the learned senior
counsel appearing for the respondentpetitioner with regard to maintainability of
the special appeal cannot be sustained.

13. The facts of the case, as reflected from
the records, are that the services of the petitioner
who was working as a Constable in the Railway
Protection Force, were terminated by an order
dated 12.04.2001 passed by the Divisional
Security Commissioner, Railway Protection
Force, Samastipur on the ground that he had
deliberately concealed the fact relating to the
pendency of a criminal case registered as Case
Crime No. 234 of 1993 dated 20.11.1993 under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504 and 506
IPC, in the declaration form submitted by him.
The appeal filed there against under the
provisions of the Railway Protection Force Act,
19577 was rejected by an order dated 31.5.2001
passed by the Chief Security Commissioner,
Railway Protection Force, Gorakhpur. The
petitioner thereafter preferred a revision, which
too was rejected by means of an order dated
27.7.2001 passed by the Director General
Railway Protection Force Railway Board, New
Delhi.

14. The aforementioned orders were
assailed by the petitioner by filing a writ
petition, Writ-A No. 37611 of 2002, raising
various grounds.

15. A detailed counter affidavit was
filed
on
behalf
of
the
respondents
(appellants herein) inter alia submitting as
under :-

"2.That before giving para-wise
reply, it is therefore, expedient and
necessary in the interest of justice to submit
brief facts of the case which are as under:

(i) That in pursuance of the
Employment Notice No. 1/96 issued on
880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
01.11.96, the petitioner was selected and
temporarily appointed on the post of
constable in Railway Protection Force of
N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur.

(ii) That after the selection, of the
petitioner, a letter No. E/P/227/1/3 PtXI/1017 dated 08.09.1997 was issued to
him
by
the
Assistant
Security
Commissioner/N.E.
Railway/Gonda
through which he was called upon to fill up
the declaration attestation form. In para- 18
of the aforesaid letter dated 08.09.1997, it
was clearly stated that the appointment on
the post of constable in R.P.F. will be
subject to the satisfactory report from the
Police authority about the character of the
petitioner.

Photostat copy of the letter dated
08.09.1997 is being filed as Annexure No.
CA-1 to the Counter Affidavit.

(iii) That it is further relevant to
mention that at the top of the page no. 2 of
the Attestation form, it was clearly
mentioned that any wrong information or
concealment of the true facts in the
attestation form will be unsuitability and
such person can be declared as unsuitable
for the Government service. It was also
mentioned that at any time during the
service if it comes into knowledge that any
false information has been given or true
facts have been concealed in the attestation
form by any candidate he can be discharged
from service. It was also mentioned at page
no. 4 Column (12) (i) of the attestation
form that whether any case is pending in
any court against him at the time of filling
the
attestation
form,
the
petitioner
concealed the true fact and answered in
negative.

Photostat copy of the attestation
form is being filed as Annexure No. C.A.-2
to this Counter affidavit.

(iv)That it is further submitted
that in the police verification report
submitted by the police authority through
District Magistrate, Deoria about the
petitioner it was found that the petitioner
was an accused in a criminal case No.
234/93 under Section-147, 148, 149, 307,
323 and 504 I.P.C., P.S. Lar, District-Deoria
and the same is still pending. Thus it is
clear that the petitioner concealed the true
facts
and
mislead
the
Railway
Administration in obtaining Government
Service on the post of constable in R.P.F.
For
the
aforesaid
concealment,
the
petitioner was issued charge sheet under
Rule-153 of the R.P.F. Rules, 1987. The
allegation against him was that he mislead
the department and disobeyed the Rule
146.6 (IV) of R.P.F. Rule 1987.

(v) That a disciplinary enquiry
was conducted as per Rules against the
petitioner and the charges leveled against
him were found proved. The Enquiry
Officer submitted enquiry report to the
disciplinary authority and the copy of the
same was also given to the petitioner on
25.02.2001 and the petitioner submitted his
defence/reply on 17.03.2001.

(Vi)
That
the
disciplinary
authority passed the order of removal from
service dated 12.04.2001 after considering
the entire material facts and circumstances
as well as the relevant records. The
petitioner preferred appeal as well as
revision which were rejected by the
competent authorities i.e. Chief Security,
Commissioner, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur
and Director General, RPF, Railway Board,
New Delhi on 31.05.2001 and 22.07.2002
respectively.

xxx

6- That the contents of para-5 the
Writ Petition are not admitted and are
vehemently denied. In reply it is submitted
that a F.I.R. was lodge against the petitioner
as well as others on 20.11.1993 against
which the petitioner and others filed a
3-5 All. The Director General, R.P.F. Railway Board New Delhi & Ors. Vs. Rajiv Kumar Singh 881
Criminal Misc. Writ Petiton No.43732 of
1993; Kapildeo Singh & others Vs. State of
U.P. and others and an iterim order was
also passed on 2.12.1993. Later on the
aforesaid writ petition was dismissed as
having become infructuous on 11.2.1997.
The petitioner as well as others filed a case
u/s-482 Cr.P.C. in High Court for quashing
the entire criminal proceedings in case
crime No.234 of 1993 which is still
pending. These facts have been disclosed
by the petitioner in the Supplementary
Affidavit filed by him in the present writ
petition. Thus the averments of the
petitioner in the para under reply that ''the
petitioner was not well aware about the
pendency of any criminal case against him
and therefore this fact was not mentioned
by the petitioner while filling up the
character verification form" are totally false
and
concocted.
The
petitioner
has
concealed the true facts in the writ petition
also and has tried to mislead the Hon'ble
Court. Thus the petitioner has given the
contradictory statements and which one is
correct is not known. The petitioner has
been rightly punished with the penalty of
removal from service for the concealment
of the true facts.

xxx

11. That the content of para
12,13,14,15, & 16 of writ petition need no
reply being the matter of record. However
it is submitted that the statement of the
petitioner in the paras under reply that he
did not make any false declaration as he
was not aware about the pendency of the
criminal case, are totally false. In the
supplementary
affidavit
filed
by
the
petitioner,
it
has
been
specifically
mentioned that a F.I.R. was lodged against
him as well as others against which a
Criminal
Misc.
Writ
Petition
No.
43732/1993 was filed and an intrim order
was passed. Later on a case under section
482 Cr.P.C. was also filed in this Hon'ble
Court which is pending. Thus petitioner
was fully aware about the criminal case
pending against him in which he was bailed
out but he concealed this fact in his
declaration form intentionally."

16. A rejoinder affidavit was filed by
the petitioner in reply to the aforesaid
counter affidavit whereunder the petitioner
inter alia submitted as under :-

"4(d). That, it is relevant to
mention here that the applicant filled up his
Attestation
Form
in
the
month
of
September 1997, and that time the
applicant was not disclosed the criminal
case
because
the
applicant
was
in
impression that he would be acquitted from
criminal charges for the reason that he has
been falsely implicated in the aforesaid
criminal case therefore the applicant has
not disclosed the aforesaid criminal case at
the time of filing up the attestation form."

17. Contention of learned counsel for
the appellants is that despite there being a
specific clause in the declaration form
requiring
the
petitioner
to
furnish
particulars of the pendency of any case
before any court, the fact with regard to the
pendency of the criminal case was
deliberately suppressed by the petitioner
and in view thereof his services were
rightly terminated. It has been submitted
that learned Single Judge though has
extracted the relevant clause in his
judgment, yet he has held that there was no
clause in the declaration form wherein
pendency of a criminal case was required to
be disclosed, and solely on the basis of the
said reasoning, the orders which were
challenged in the writ petition have been
set aside and the writ petition has been
allowed.
882 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18. Learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner respondent has supported
the order passed by the learned Single
Judge and tried to contend that there being
no
clause
in
the
declaration
form
specifically requiring information with
regard to pendency of criminal proceedings
there was no occasion for the petitioner to
give any such information and accordingly
the orders passed by the departmental
authorities were rightly set aside by the
learned Single Judge.

19. Rival contentions fall for
consideration.

20. The outcome of the case rests
upon the fact as to whether in terms of the
relevant clause in the declaration form the
petitioner was required to disclose any
information with regard to pendency of a
criminal case, and, further, whether on
account of non-disclosure of the said fact
the petitioner could be held to be guilty of
the suppression of material information.

21. The information required to be
furnished in the declaration form in para
12, which has been duly extracted in the
judgment of the learned Single Judge, is as
follows:-

"12 1⁄4i1⁄2 1⁄4d1⁄2 D;k vki dHkh fxj¶rkj
gq, gSa\

1⁄4[k1⁄2 D;k dHkh vki dk pkyku gqvk
gSa\

1⁄4x1⁄2 D;k vki dHkh cUnh ds :i esa j[ks
x;s gSa\

1⁄4?k1⁄2 D;k vki dHkh ifjcfU/kr fd, x;s
gSa\

1⁄4M+1⁄2 D;k dHkh fdlh U;k;ky; }kjk
vki ij tqekZuk fd;k x;k gSa\

1⁄4p1⁄2 D;k dHkh fdlh U;k;ky; }kjk
vfHk'kLr fd, x, gSa\

1⁄4N1⁄2D;k vki fdlh fo'ofo|ky; vFkok
fdlh vU; f'k{kk izkf/kdkjh@laLFkk }kjk fdlh
ijh{kk ls oftZr vFkok fu"dkflr fd, x;s gSa\

1⁄4t1⁄2 D;k dHkh dHkh jsy vFkok yksd
lsok vk;ksx }kjk bldh fdlh ijh{kk@pquko esa
Hkkx ysus ls fuoftZr vk;ksX; ?kksf"kr fd; x;s gSa\

1⁄4>1⁄2 D;k bl lk{;adu&i= dks Hkkjrs
le; vki ds fo:) fdlh U;k;ky; esa dksbZ
ekeyk fopkjk/khu gSa\

1⁄4¥1⁄2 D;k bl lk{;a;&i= dks Hkjrs
le; vki ds fo:) fdlh fo'ofo|ky; vFkok
fdlh izkf/kdkjh ds ;gka laLFkk esa dksbZ ekeyk
fopkjk/khu gSa\

1⁄4ii1⁄2 ;fn mi;qDr iz'uksa esa ls fdlh
dk mRrj *gka* gks rks ml ekeys fxj¶rkjh@cUnh
cuk, tkus tqekZuk vfHkf'kLr n.Mkns'k@ltk
bR;kfn rFkk vFkok bl QkeZ dks Hkjrs le;
U;k;ky;@fo'ofo|ky; f'k{k.k@izkf/kdkjh bR;kfn
ds ;gkW fopkjk/khu ekeys dk fooj.k nsa."

22. The english translation of the
aforementioned para 12 of the declaration
form, as given in the judgment of the writ
court, is also being extracted below.

"12(i)(a) Whether you have ever
been arrested?

(b) Whether you have ever been
challaned?

(c) Whether you have ever been
detained?

(d) Whether you have ever been
bound?

(e) Whether any fine has ever
been imposed by court on you?

(f) Whether you have ever been
convicted by any court ?

(g) Whether you have ever been
forbidden
or
expelled
from
any
examination by any university or any other
educational authority/institution?

(h) Whether you have ever been
disqualified or with-held by the Railways
or the Public Service Commission from
3-5 All. The Director General, R.P.F. Railway Board New Delhi & Ors. Vs. Rajiv Kumar Singh 883
appearing in any examination/selection
process conducted by them?

(I) Whether any case is pending
before
any
court
while
filling
this
verification form?

(j) Whether any case is pending
with any university or any authority of any
institution while filling this verification
form?

(k) If reply to any of the queries
raised above is in 'yes', then kindly give the
details of arrest/detention, fine, conviction /
sentence/punishment etc. or of the matter
pending
with
the
court/university/educational authority etc."

23.

A
plain
reading
of
the
aforementioned para 12 of the declaration
form clearly shows that as per terms of para
12 (i) 1⁄4>1⁄2 or 12 (i) (I) as per english
translation, the petitoner was specifically
required to give a response to the following
question.

"12 1⁄4i1⁄2 1⁄4>1⁄2 D;k bl lk{;adu&i=
dks Hkkjrs le; vki ds fo:) fdlh U;k;ky; esa
dksbZ ekeyk fopkjk/khu gSa\

"12(i) (I) Whether any case is
pending before any court while filling this
verification form?"

24. It is therefore clear that the
declaration form which was filled up by the
petitioner at the time of his entry into
service specifically required the petitioner
to disclose information with regard to any
case pending before any court at the time of
filling up the verification form.

25. It is not the case of the petitioner
that there was no requirement in the
declaration form to disclose the information
with regard to pendency of any criminal
case against him rather the defence sought
to be put forward by the petitioner before
the departmental authorities, as is evident
from the grounds urged by him in his
revision filed before the Director General
Railway Protection Force Railway Board,
New Delhi, is to the effect that the
revisionist did not mention the pending
criminal case in the character verification
form inadvertently and not deliberately
because he was not aware of the
technicalities of the rules at that time. The
aforementioned ground, as taken by the
petitioner in the revision filed by him, is as
follows :-

"14. That the revisionist did not
mention the pending criminal case in the
character verification form inadvertently
and not deliberately because he was not
aware of the technicalities of the rules at
that time."

26. The lodging of an F.I.R.,
registration of the criminal case and the
petitioner
subsequently
having
been
enlarged on bail, are facts which have been
admitted in the writ petition also, as stated
in paragraph 6 thereof, which reads as
follows :-

"6. That it may be pointed out
that due to enmity and rivalry in the village
politics a first information report was
lodged at Police Station-Lar, DistrictDeoria on 20.11.1993 by one Ramji Singh
of the same village against 17 persons of
village Barhiha Dalpat and name of the
petitioner was also included with other
villagers in the aforesaid information
report. The F.I.R. was lodged under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504 &
506 I.P.C. and was registered as Crime
Case No. 234/93 at P.S.-Lar, DistrictDeoria. The petitioner alongwith other
villagers however have been granted bail in
the aforesaid case."
884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

27. Further, admission with regard to
the pendency of the criminal case has also
been made by the petitioner in his rejoinder
affidavit and the reason which he has
sought to furnish therein to justify the nondisclosure of the information of the
pending criminal case is that he was under
an impression that he would be acquitted of
the criminal charges.

28. In the face of the aforementioned
facts, the contention of the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the respondentpetitioner disputing the fact that in terms of
the declaration required in the verification
form there was no specific requirement
with regard to disclosure of the information
in respect of any pending case before any
court at the time of filling up the
verification form, cannot be accepted.

29. The purpose of verification of the
character and antecedents is one of the
criteria to test the suitability of a candidate
for the post in question before appointment
is made.

30. It is considered desirable that the
incumbent should not have antecedents of
such a nature which may adjudge him
unsuitable for the post.

31. The order dated 12.04.2001
terminating the services of the petitioner
has taken note of the fact that the petitioner
had suppressed the material information
with regard to pendency of the criminal
case while filling up the declaration in the
verification form at the time of his entry
into service.

32. It is not in dispute that a criminal case
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 504 and
506 IPC, registered as Case Crime No. 234 of
1993, was pending at the relevant point of time,
in the year 1997, when the petitioner filled up
the verification form and did not disclose the
information regarding pendency of the said
criminal case.

33. The declaration required to be
furnished as per clause 12 (i) of the verification
form specifically required disclosure of
information with regard to pendency of any
case before any court at the time of filling up
the verification form. The requirement of filling
the particulars under clause 12 (i) of the
aforesaid verification form was for the purpose
of verification of character and antecedents of
the petitioner respondent as on the date of filling
the verification form.

34. Suppression of material information
or making a false statement would have a clear
bearing on the character and antecedents of the
respondent in relation to his continuance in
service. The purpose of seeking information as
sought in clause 12 of the verification form may
not be for the purpose of finding out the nature
and gravity of the offence or the result of the
criminal case ultimately but the same would
have to be seen with a view to verify the
character and antecedents of the respondent so
as to judge his suitability for being appointed in
service.

35. The constitution and regulation of
the Railway Protection Force is provided
for in terms of the Railway Protection
Force Act, 1957 and in exercise of the rule
making power conferred by Section 21 of
the aforesaid Act, the Railway Protection
Force Rules, 1987 were made. Rule 52
thereof
provides
for
verification
of
character and antecedents to test the
suitability of the recruit being appointed as
a member of the force. Rule 52 of the
Rules, 1987, reads as follows.

"52. Verification:
3-5 All. The Director General, R.P.F. Railway Board New Delhi & Ors. Vs. Rajiv Kumar Singh 885

52.1. As soon as a recruit is
selected but before he is formally appointed
to the Force, his character and antecedents
shall be got verified in accordance with the
procedure
prescribed
by
the
Central
Government from time to time.

52.2. Where after verification, a
recruit is not found suitable for the Force,
he shall not be appointed as a member of
the Force."

36. The aforementioned Rule, which
provides for verification of character and
antecedents of a recruit, also provides that
where after the verification a recruit is not
found suitable for the force, he shall not be
appointed as a member of the force.

37. It is therefore seen that as per
Rule 52, referred to above, a prospective
employee may be refused employment on
the ground of unsatisfactory antecedents
and character. Suppression of material
information or making a false statement in
reply to specific queries in the verification
form which may lead to an inference of a
dubious conduct and absence of character
of the prospective employee at the time of
making the declaration may therefore also
be held as making him unsuitable for being
appointed as a member of the force.

38. The question of suppression of
information or submitting false information in
the verification form as to the question of
having been criminally prosecuted or arrested
or as to pendency of a criminal case was subject
to divergent views and noticing the conflict of
opinion in the various decisions, the Supreme
Court in Jainendra Singh vs. State of U.P.
through Principal Secretary, Home & Ors.8
pointed out certain cardinal principles, before
granting relief to the aggrieved party in such
matters,
and
referred
the
issues
for
consideration
to
a
larger
bench.
The
observations made in the judgment are as
follows :-

"29. As noted by us, all the above
decisions were rendered by a Division Bench of
this Court consisting of two-Judges and having
bestowed our serious consideration to the issue,
we consider that while dealing with such an
issue, the Court will have to bear in mind the
various cardinal principles before granting any
relief to the aggrieved party, namely:

29.1. Fraudulently obtained orders of
appointment could be legitimately treated as
voidable at the option of the employer or could
be recalled by the employer and in such cases
merely because the respondent employee has
continued in service for a number of years, on
the basis of such fraudulently obtained
employment, cannot get any equity in his
favour or any estoppel against the employer.

29.2. Verification of the character
and antecedents is one of the important criteria
to test whether the selected candidate is suitable
to the post under the State and on account of his
antecedents the appointing authority if finds it
not desirable to appoint a person to a disciplined
force can it be said to be unwarranted.

29.3.
When
appointment
was
procured by a person on the basis of forged
documents,
it
would
amount
to
misrepresentation and fraud on the employer
and, therefore, it would create no equity in his
favour or any estoppel against the employer
while resorting to termination without holding
any inquiry.