Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anup Kumar And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 6 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032040
CWP-3818-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
124
CWP-3818-2025
Date of Decision: 06.03.2025
Anup Kumar and another ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. R.S. Dhull, Advocate (appearing through video conferencing)
and Mr. Navnit Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India are seeking direction to respondent to issue them
appointment letter.
2. The petitioners, pursuant to advertisement No.6/2024 dated
28.06.2024, applied for the post of Constable. They participated in the Common
Eligibility Test as well as final test. They came to be selected. The respondent
conducted verification of their credentials and found that FIR(s) were pending
against them at the time of filing application forms. Thus, their candidature
came to be rejected.
3. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana, during the course of
hearing, produced application forms of both the petitioners. There is specific
column in the application forms with respect to FIR. The petitioners did not
disclose particulars of FIR pending against them. They specifically mentioned
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032040
that no FIR is pending against them.
4. The selection process completed in 2024 and petitioners came to be
acquitted after completion of selection process. As petitioners did not disclose
particulars of pending FIR in the application forms and specifically mentioned
that no criminal case is pending against them, they are not entitled to benefit of
findings of a three-Judge Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar
Singh vs. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471. The Court after noticing plethora
of judgments has culled out legal position as below:
"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
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032040
such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of
the following recourse 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 in
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.
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032040
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 submitting
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."
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032040
5. Rather, their case is squarely covered by a two Judge Bench of
Supreme Court in Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India and others., 2023
(7) SCC 536. The Court has adverted to question of appointment of a candidate
against whom criminal case is pending/or was instituted. The Court has laid
down guidelines as below:
"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 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 [State v. Raj
Kumar, (2021) 8 SCC 347]).
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
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032040
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?"
6. In the case in hand, the petitioners concededly did not disclose their
criminal antecedents in the application form. The Apex Court in Avtar Singh
(supra) in Paragraph No.38.5 has held that where an 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.
In Paragraph No.38.7, it has been held that in case of deliberate suppression of
fact, an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or
terminating services. A similar observation has been made by Supreme Court in
Satish Chandra Yadav (supra). Case of the petitioners is squarely covered by
aforesaid judgments. Had the petitioners disclosed their antecedents, this Court
could consider nature of criminal cases or their status, however, the petitioners
as per their wisdom had decided not to disclose their antecedents. The act of the
petitioners falls within negative observations made in afore-cited judgments.
7. In the wake of above discussion & findings and following the
judgments of Apex Court in Avtar Singh (supra) and Satish Chandra Yadav
(supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that present petition being bereft
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032040
of merit deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
06.03.2025 (JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
shivani JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking Yes
Whether reportable Yes
7 of 7
