Supreme Court Upholds Removal of CISF Constable for Suppressing Criminal Antecedents

Ex-Constable/Driver Mukesh Kumar Raigar has lost his plea against the Union of India and others. Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi dismissed his special leave petition and refused to interfere with his removal from the Central Industrial Security Force for withholding a pending criminal case during verification of character and antecedents.

Appointed as a CISF constable on November 3, 2007, Raigar faced proceedings under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001 for not disclosing FIR No. 153/2003 dated October 21, 2003. The FIR was for offences under Sections 323, 324 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, and the case was pending before the competent court when he filed his verification particulars.

He accepted his mistake during the departmental enquiry. Taking note of his young age and future prospects, the disciplinary authority imposed reduction of pay by one stage. The Deputy Inspector General then used suo motu revisional power under Rule 54 of the CISF Rules, 2001 and ordered a fresh departmental enquiry.

The fresh proceedings ended in his removal from service on March 9, 2010. His departmental appeal and revision petition against the removal were dismissed.

High Court restored removal after reinstatement order

Before the Rajasthan High Court, Raigar challenged the removal. In the first round, the Single Bench directed reconsideration in the light of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others, which lays down the principles on suppression of criminal antecedents in public employment.

The CISF authorities, on reconsideration, again held him unsuitable for service, referring to the disciplined character of the force and its deployment at sensitive security establishments. The Single Bench allowed his fresh writ petition on February 17, 2021 with a direction for reinstatement with consequential benefits.

On appeal by the Union of India, the Division Bench by judgment dated November 16, 2021 set aside the Single Bench order and restored the removal. Before the Supreme Court, Raigar contended the criminal case related to a time when he was about nineteen, involved offences of a less serious nature and had ended in a compromise. He said removal was disproportionate since he had admitted the lapse.

The Supreme Court examined the principles in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, on truthful disclosure of criminal antecedents by candidates for public employment. It affirmed the Division Bench view and reiterated that suppression of criminal antecedents justifies removal from public employment. With the dismissal of the petition, the removal stands and no reinstatement follows.