Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinod Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 21 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
108 CWP-34239-2025
Date of Decision: 21.11.2025
VINOD KUMAR ...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: - Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Addl. A.G, Haryana
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated
10.02.2025 whereby respondent has rejected his claim for the post of
Constable.
2. This is second round of litigation. On the earlier occasion, the
petitioner preferred CWP-33746-2024 which was disposed of vide order
dated 13.12.2024. Order dated 13.12.2024 being a short order is reproduced
as below-
"1. The petitioner through instant petition under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking
direction to respondents to consider him for the post of
Constable.
2. The petitioner pursuant to an advertisement
applied for the post of Constable. He belongs to SC
category. He cleared written as well as physical test.
He was called by office of Superintendent of Police,
Kaithal for joining duty, however, authorities did not
1 of 9
`
permit him to join and no appointment letter was
issued.
3. Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate submits
that petitioner believes that respondent has not issued
appointment letter because two FIRs were registered
against him. The petitioner has already been acquitted
in FIR No. 106 dated 14.05.2016 vide judgment dated
15.11.2022 (Annexure P-11) passed by trial Court.
Appeal filed against judgment of acquittal stands
dismissed. The trial arising out of second FIR No. 270
dated 09.12.2016 under Sections 186, 332, 353, 427,
506 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Adampur,
District Hisar is still pending and he is likely to be
acquitted. The respondent has not made any formal
communication. The petitioner has been deprived from
his valuable right to join the post.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Mr. Raman Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana who
on advance notice is present in Court, accepts notice
on behalf of respondent-State and waives service.
6. With the consent of both sides, the matter is
taken up for final disposal.
7. Learned State counsel submits that petitioner
cannot be permitted to join because he was involved in
two FIRs. Trial arising out of one FIR is still pending,
nevertheless, Competent Authority would examine the
matter and pass an appropriate order, if not passed till
date.
8. In the wake of statement of learned State
counsel, the present petition stands disposed of with a
direction to respondent No. 4 to pass an appropriate
order within 2 months from today, with respect to
grievance of the petitioner."
3. The respondent pursuant to aforesaid order has passed
impugned order dated 10.02.2025 whereby petitioner's claim for the post of
Constable has been rejected. The respondent in the impugned order has
2 of 9
`
noted that petitioner was facing two FIRs. He was acquitted in FIR No.106
dated 14.05.2016, however, was facing trial, at the time of verification, in
the FIR No.270 dated 09.12.2016. Charges have already been framed for
committing offence punishable under Sections 186/332/353/427/506/34 IPC.
Punishment prescribed for committing offence under Section 506 IPC is 7
years, thus, case of petitioner was squarely covered under Rule 12.18(3)(b)
of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (for short
'PPR'). The operative portion of order dated 10.02.2025 is reproduced as
below: -
"As per PUC against applicant Vinod Kumar
FIR No.270 dated 09.12.2016 u/s
186/332/353/427/506/34 IPC and FIR No.106 dated
14.05.2016 u/s 435/34 IPC, P.S. Adampur have been
registered. As per Sec. 506 IPC if threat be to cause
death or grievous hurt, etc. punishment of
imprisonment which may extend to Seven years can be
provided.
As far as FIR No. 106/16 is concerned the same
has been registered u/s 435, 34 IPC in which
punishment with imprisonment extending to Seven
years and fine is provided. In this FIR applicant has
been acquitted but appeal has been filed by the
complainant which was pending before the session
court Hisar and the appeal has been dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 28.10.2024.
Rule 12.18(3)(b) as reproduced above bars
consideration of candidate for appointment against
whom charges have been framed with offences
punishable with imprisonment of three years or more.
In FIR No. 270 dated 09.12.2016 charge against the
applicant have been framed w/s
186/332/353/427/506/34 IPC. U/s 506 IPC
imprisonment of extending upto 7 years may be
awarded if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt
3 of 9
`
etc. Hence in my opinion as case of applicant is
covered under Rule 12.18 (3) (b) so he may not be
considered for appointment.
In view of the above mentioned facts, I
considered the grievance of the petitioner thoroughly.
The case of the petitioner is covered under rule
12.18(3) (b) of Haryana Government Gaz. (Extra),
June 18, 2015 (JYST. 28, 1937 SAKA) (Haryana
Government Home Department Notification 18 June,
2015 No. S.O. 133/H.A.25/2008/S.92/2015.) The
petitioner Vinod Kumar is not liable to be considered
for appointment. The grievance of the petitioner is
disposed of accordingly."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of
petitioner is covered by Clause (c) of Rule 12.18(3) of PPR. The petitioner
stood acquitted in both FIRs at the time of verification of credentials. The
respondent has wrongly invoked Clause (b) of Rule 12.18(3) of PPR. This
Court vide order dated 18.07.2025 passed in Surender v. State of Haryana
and others, CWP No.13263 of 2025 has directed respondent to issue
appointment letter. Case of petitioner is squarely covered by aforesaid
judgment. The petitioner was never asked to submit attestation-cum-
verification form as per Rule 12.18(2) of PPR, thus, his claim was clearly
covered by Clause (c) because at the time of verification of credentials, he
had already been acquitted by the trial Court.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that case of the
petitioner is covered by Clause (b) and not Clause (c) of Rule 12.18(3) of
PPR. The petitioner is wrongly placing reliance upon Clause (c). The
petitioner was implicated in two FIRs. In one FIR, he was acquitted prior to
filing affidavit after declaration of result whereas in second FIR, he was
4 of 9
`
acquitted on 14.02.2025. Charges in the said case were framed on
03.05.2017 i.e. before verification of credentials.
6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides
and perused the record with their able assistance.
7. Rule 12.18 of PPR provides that candidate shall disclose the
fact regarding registration of FIR or criminal complaint against him for any
offence under any law along with the current status of such case in the
application form and verification-cum-attestation form. Non-disclosure of
such information shall lead to disqualification of the candidate outrightly
solely on this ground. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 12.18 provides for the manner of
dealing with a situation arising from verification of character and
antecedents. For the ready reference, Rule 12.18 is reproduced as below:-
"12.18. Verification of character and antecedents:-
(1) The appointing authority shall send the verification
forms of candidates recommended for appointment by the
Haryana Staff Selection Commission to the district police and
Criminal Investigation Department with a copy to the District
Magistrate for the verification of character and antecedents,
as per Form No. 12.18 and Government instructions issued
from time to time on the subject.
(2) The candidate shall disclose the fact regarding
registration of FIR or criminal complaint against him for any
offence under any law along-with the current status of such
case in application form and verification cum attestation form
irrespective of the final outcome of the case. Non-disclosure
of such information shall lead to disqualification of the
candidature out-rightly, solely on this ground:
Provided that where a candidate, who as a juvenile
had earlier come in conflict with law and was dealt with
under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000, shall not suffer any
5 of 9
`
disqualification on account of non-disclosure of this fact
either in application form or verification cum attestation
form.
3) Where the appointing authority upon verification of
character and antecedents of the candidate recommended for
appointment comes to know that criminal proceedings against
a candidate is in progress and the status of the case is
reported to be either under investigation or challenged or
cancelled or sent untraced or withdrawn or under trial or has
either been convicted or acquitted or the candidate has
preferred appeal against the order of the court; the
appointing authority upon verification shall deal with the
cases of candidates reported to have criminal cases
registered against them and to the matters connected
therewith as stated hereinafter;
(a) Where, a candidate is found to have been convicted for
an offence involving moral turpitude or punishable
with imprisonment for three years or more, shall not
be considered for appointment.
(b) Where charges have been framed against a candidate
for offence(s) involving moral turpitude or which is
punishable with imprisonment of three years or more,
shall also not be considered for appointment.
(c) Where, the candidate has disclosed the fact regarding
registration of criminal case as described under sub-
rule (2) above, and where the status of any case at the
time of verification of antecedents of the candidate by
local Police is found to be either as 'withdrawn by the
State Government' or 'cancelled' or 'sent untraced' or
'acquitted' for any offence, under any law, such
candidate shall be considered for appointment in
Haryana Police:
(d) Where the 'cancellation report' or 'an untraced report'
in a case against a candidate has been submitted by
the investigating agency in the competent court of law,
the appointment shall be offered only if
approval/acceptance of such cancellation or untraced
report has been accorded by the trial Court.
6 of 9
`
(e) Where the candidate has been acquitted in offences
related to sovereignty of the State or national integrity
i.e. spying against national interest/waging war
against the State/act of terrorism/communal
disturbance/smuggling of arms, ammunition or
Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances or
counterfeit currency etc. besides heinous crimes e.g.
murder, rape, dacoity, robbery, kidnapping for
ransom, acid attacks, human trafficking, Protection Of
Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 or Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 etc., 'on technical grounds' i.e.
where, in the opinion of the Court the star/material
prosecution witnesses have either been killed or have
died or remained untraced or turned hostile or won
over and the candidate has been acquitted on account
of aforementioned circumstances; such candidates
shall not be considered for appointment.
4) If it is ever revealed that a candidate has got
appointment either by concealment of facts or by furnishing
false or wrong information or by submitting fake or forged
document/certificate, he shall be discharged from the service
by the appointing authority from the date of appointment,
summarily i.e. without holding a regular disciplinary
proceedings, treating him ineligible for service and salary
paid to him may also ordered to be recovered."
8. From the perusal of Rule 12.18(3) of PPR, it is evident that it
covers different situations arising out of registration of FIR. A person may or
may not be subjected to face trial after registration of FIR. He may or may
not be subjected to charges. He may be acquitted or discharged or convicted.
A deep perusal of clauses of Rule 12.18(3) of PPR reveals that all the
clauses are contemplating different situations arising out of registration of
FIR. Clause (a) is applicable where a person is convicted for an offence
involving moral turpitude or with punishment of imprisonment for 3 years or
more. Clause (b) with a situation where trial is pending and charges have
7 of 9
`
been framed for offence involving moral turpitude or which is punishable
with imprisonment of 3 years or more. Clause (c) deals with a situation
arising on account of withdrawal or cancellation of FIR. Clause (c) also
provides that a person shall be eligible for appointment if he has been
acquitted for any offence under any law. Clause (d) deals with a situation
arising on account of filing cancellation or untraced report. Clause (e)
provides for denial of appointment where person is acquitted but was
involved in offences relating to sovereignty of the State or national integrity
or heinous crimes and he is acquitted on technical grounds i.e. where the
Court forms an opinion that star/material prosecution witnesses have either
been killed or have died or remained untraced or turned hostile or won over.
9. A conspectus of Rule 12.18 (3) reveals that case of the
petitioner is covered by Clause (b) of Rule 12.18(3). As per Clause (b) of
aforesaid Rule, where charges have been framed against a candidate for
offence(s) involving moral turpitude or which is punishable for
imprisonment of three years or more, he shall not be considered for
appointment. The petitioner was implicated in an offence punishable with 7
years imprisonment. Clause (b) of aforesaid Rule is carved out in negative
form. It provides that candidate shall not be considered if charges are framed
for offences discussed therein. It means if charges are framed for any other
offence, the competent authority may consider for appointment.
10. Haryana Staff Selection Commission declared final result
which included name of the petitioner. Pursuant to orders of higher
authorities, SP Kaithal called him in his office on 19.10.2024. He filed
affidavit disclosing that he was implicated in two FIR(s). Verification of
latest status of FIR(s) was conducted and it was found that trial in FIR
8 of 9
`
No.270 dated 09.12.2016 is still going on and next date is 10.02.2025. On
the date of filing affidavit and verification by respondent trial was pending,
thus, case of petitioner is covered under Clause (b) and not (c).
11. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed and
accordingly dismissed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
November 21, 2025
Deepak DPA
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
9 of 9
