Suppression of criminal antecedents – Discharge valid Constables in RPF/RPSF discharged for deliberate non‑disclosure of pending criminal cases in attestation forms; suppression amounted to suppressio veri and justified termination. (Paras 4–5, 20–22)

  Supreme Court of India ruling in Bappa Barai v. Union of India & Ors. (2026 INSC 882, decided 18 August 2026):

Headnotes 

1. Suppression of criminal antecedents – Discharge valid Constables in RPF/RPSF discharged for deliberate non‑disclosure of pending criminal cases in attestation forms; suppression amounted to suppressio veri and justified termination. (Paras 4–5, 20–22)

2. RPF Rules – Verification and discharge Rules 52 and 67 of RPF Rules, 1987 mandate verification of antecedents before appointment; candidate liable to discharge if found unsuitable or guilty of suppression. (Paras 15–18)

3. Employment Notice and Attestation Form – Warning Clause 9(f) of Employment Notice and Attestation Form explicitly warned that false declaration or suppression would lead to disqualification, dismissal, or criminal case. (Paras 16–17)

4. Avtar Singh principles – Applicability Court applied Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471; deliberate suppression of multiple pending cases falls under para 38.7, warranting cancellation of candidature. (Paras 19–21)

5. Natural justice – Compliance Initial discharge orders (2015) set aside; reconsideration directed; fresh detailed orders passed in 2017 with reasons; principles of natural justice satisfied. (Para 23)

6. Parity claim – Rejected Appellants cannot claim parity with reinstated candidates; those reinstated were either acquitted before filling attestation form or reinstated under High Court directions on trivial allegations. (Paras 26–28)

7. Distinction from Pawan Kumar and Satpal Singh Pawan Kumar (2023) inapplicable as acquittal preceded attestation; Satpal Singh (2026 INSC 798) concerned long‑serving SPO discharged after 12 years; facts distinguishable. (Paras 24–25)

8. Appeals dismissed Supreme Court upheld concurrent findings of Single Judge and Division Bench; discharge orders valid; civil appeals dismissed. (Paras 29–30)

This ruling is significant because it reaffirmed the strict requirement of truthful disclosure of criminal antecedents in recruitment to disciplined forces like RPF/RPSF, and clarified that suppression itself is sufficient ground for discharge, even if acquittals occur later.