Akash Deep Singh, Ews (Male) Category vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner, who was placed in the selection list against the post of Constable in Civil Police is aggrieved by the cancellation of his candidature vide order dated 16th July, 2025 on the ground of pendency of criminal case.

3. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has not disclosed about the pendency of criminal case as he was not having any knowledge about it but subsequently, he was acquitted in the case in the final judgment passed by the trial court on 2nd August, 2025 in Warrant or Summons Criminal Case No.- 3514 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.- 857 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 452, 504, 506, 427, 354, 354B, 447/511 I.P.C., Police Station - Baghpat, District Baghpat. It is thus argued that since petitioner has stood acquitted from the criminal case and there is no criminal history to the credit of the petitioner, petitioner's claim for selection and appointment can be considered in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others 2016 (8) SCC 471 in which vide paragraph 38 guidelines have been laid down. Thus, it is argued that if petitioner approaches the authority, the Court may direct the authority to revisit the matter. Paragraph 38 of Avtar Singh (supra) is quoted hereunder: "38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far 2 WRIA No. 12824 of 2025 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 consideration 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 such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses 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 3 WRIA No. 12824 of 2025 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.

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. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 16th July, 2025 is hereby quashed.

5. The matter is remitted to the authority concerned with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the competent authority to revisit the matter of selection and appointment of the petitioner on the principles and guidelines laid down in Avtar Singh (supra) as quoted above. The authority shall not be influenced by its previous stand while cancelling candidature of the petitioner. An appropriate decision shall be taken positively within a period of two months of presentation of certified 4 WRIA No. 12824 of 2025 copy of this order along with the representation as directed herein above. September 1, 2025 Atmesh (Ajit Kumar,J.) ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner, who was placed in the selection list against the post of Constable in Civil Police is aggrieved by the cancellation of his candidature vide order dated 16th July, 2025 on the ground of pendency of criminal case.

3. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has not disclosed about the pendency of criminal case as he was not having any knowledge about it but subsequently, he was acquitted in the case in the final judgment passed by the trial court on 2nd August, 2025 in Warrant or Summons Criminal Case No.- 3514 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.- 857 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 452, 504, 506, 427, 354, 354B, 447/511 I.P.C., Police Station - Baghpat, District Baghpat. It is thus argued that since petitioner has stood acquitted from the criminal case and there is no criminal history to the credit of the petitioner, petitioner's claim for selection and appointment can be considered in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others 2016 (8) SCC 471 in which vide paragraph 38 guidelines have been laid down. Thus, it is argued that if petitioner approaches the authority, the Court may direct the authority to revisit the matter. Paragraph 38 of Avtar Singh (supra) is quoted hereunder: "38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far 2 WRIA No. 12824 of 2025 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 consideration 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 such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses 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 3 WRIA No. 12824 of 2025 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.

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. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 16th July, 2025 is hereby quashed.

5. The matter is remitted to the authority concerned with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the competent authority to revisit the matter of selection and appointment of the petitioner on the principles and guidelines laid down in Avtar Singh (supra) as quoted above. The authority shall not be influenced by its previous stand while cancelling candidature of the petitioner. An appropriate decision shall be taken positively within a period of two months of presentation of certified 4 WRIA No. 12824 of 2025 copy of this order along with the representation as directed herein above. September 1, 2025 Atmesh (Ajit Kumar,J.) ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad