Court rules that suppression of criminal charges during probation justifies termination under CISF Rules, 2001.
In a significant judgment delivered on June 29, 2026, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, comprising Justices Madhuresh Prasad and Prasenjit Biswas, upheld the termination of CISF Constable Gujjudi Varaprasad for providing false information regarding criminal cases in his attestation form. The ruling aligns with established precedents set by the Supreme Court of India and emphasizes the importance of honesty in declarations during recruitment processes.
The case originated from Varaprasad's recruitment process for CISF Constables in 2012-2013, where he successfully passed the selection stages and was appointed on probation in September 2014. However, discrepancies arose during the verification of his attestation form submitted on September 28, 2014. Varaprasad had falsely declared that there were no pending criminal cases against him, despite being implicated in two criminal cases—Crime No. 70/2013 and Crime No. 5/2014—where he was later acquitted.
The CISF authorities, citing Rules 25(2) and 26(4) of the Central Industrial Security Forces Rules, 2001, terminated Varaprasad's service on October 18, 2016, for suppression of material information. The termination was upheld by the Appellate Authority, leading Varaprasad to challenge the decision in the Calcutta High Court.
The Hon'ble Single Judge initially quashed the termination, citing a lack of evidence linking Varaprasad directly to the criminal cases, given the discrepancies in the names recorded in police documents. However, the Division Bench disagreed, noting Varaprasad's own admissions in his appeal/representation where he acknowledged involvement in the criminal cases under a different name due to village political rivalries. The Bench found that Varaprasad's assertions in his appeal confirmed his implication, thereby justifying the termination under CISF rules.
The judgment draws heavily on Supreme Court rulings, particularly the Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) and Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India (2022) cases, which establish that false declarations impacting suitability for employment warrant termination during probation without an inquiry, regardless of subsequent acquittals.
The Court emphasized that honesty in recruitment processes is paramount, and suppression of facts, irrespective of eventual acquittals, impacts the suitability and integrity of candidates for sensitive positions like those in the CISF. The verdict reinstates the termination order and sets aside the previous decision by the Single Judge, underscoring the legal principle that false declarations have serious consequences.
Bottom line:-
False declaration or suppression of facts in attestation form regarding criminal cases, even if followed by acquittal, can lead to termination during probation without an enquiry under CISF Rules, 2001.
Statutory provision(s): Rule 25(2) and Rule 26(4) of the Central Industrial Security Forces Rules, 2001.
Union of India v. Gujjudi Varaprasad, (Calcutta)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2939821
