Anil Kumar vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

one Ram Lal had lodged a First Information Report (FIR) being Case Crime No.712 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 447, 504 and 506 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, against a large number of persons, 27 in number, and allegation was that while a measurement exercise 2 WRIA No. 14197 of 2025 of his land was going on under the orders of Sub Divisional Magistrate and Radhe Shyam, Hori Lal son of Tukki Ram, the private villagers, who were in illegal possession of complainant's land, came on the spot alongwith a large number of villagers and started physically assaulting him and pelting stones upon him. It is further submitted that petitioner being a villager had got falsely implicated otherwise he had no role to play, nor was assigned any role in FIR, inasmuch as all those accused in the said criminal case have stood finally acquitted vide judgment and order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mathura in Criminal Case No.341 of 2019, which has not been further appealed against. He further submitted that there is no other criminal case pending in which petitioner can be said to have implicated. It thus argued candidature of the petitioner having been rejected after the order of acquittal was passed by the Criminal Law Court, the respondents are required to revisit their decision in the light of the law laid down in the case of Avatar Singh v. Union of India, 2016 (8) SCC 471 and the principle enunciated vide paragraph 38 runs as follows: “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. 3 WRIA No. 14197 of 2025

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 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. 4 WRIA No. 14197 of 2025

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 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. It is submitted further that in identical set of facts, writ petition was filed by one Naveen Rajhansh being writ A No. 6543 of 2023, Naveen Rajhans, State of U.P and 5 Others, decided on 28.4.2023, who was selected in Civil Police, but was not being offered appointment only on account of pending criminal case. This Court considered this aspect of 5 WRIA No. 14197 of 2025 the matter in the light of judgment of Avtar Singh (supra) and allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order with a further direction to process appointment of that petitioner.

5. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that it was a criminal case instituted in the year 2018 which ought to have been disclosed by the petitioner but he concealed it intentionally to get himself selected, however, he does not dispute the legal proposition as discussed in the case of Naveen Rajhansh and also another judgment of the High Court in the case of Sonu Yadav v. State of U.P. and 5 Others, Writ A No. 4577 of 2019, decided on 8th January, 2021.

6. In the considered view of the Court and considering the principle laid down in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), petitioner's candidature deserves to be reconsidered by asking a fresh police verification report and character certificate. Accordingly, respondent no.4 is directed to obtain fresh police verification report and character certificate within a period of six weeks of production of certified copy of this order. Soon after obtaining report, concerned respondents-Senior Superintendent of Police shall proceed to take decision accordingly within a further period of four weeks.

7. In the circumstances, the order impugned dated 6 WRIA No. 14197 of 2025 Nil July, 2025 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur brought on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition is hereby quashed.

8. The writ petition thus stands allowed as above. September 19, 2025 Deepika (Ajit Kumar,J.) DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

one Ram Lal had lodged a First Information Report (FIR) being Case Crime No.712 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 447, 504 and 506 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, against a large number of persons, 27 in number, and allegation was that while a measurement exercise 2 WRIA No. 14197 of 2025 of his land was going on under the orders of Sub Divisional Magistrate and Radhe Shyam, Hori Lal son of Tukki Ram, the private villagers, who were in illegal possession of complainant's land, came on the spot alongwith a large number of villagers and started physically assaulting him and pelting stones upon him. It is further submitted that petitioner being a villager had got falsely implicated otherwise he had no role to play, nor was assigned any role in FIR, inasmuch as all those accused in the said criminal case have stood finally acquitted vide judgment and order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mathura in Criminal Case No.341 of 2019, which has not been further appealed against. He further submitted that there is no other criminal case pending in which petitioner can be said to have implicated. It thus argued candidature of the petitioner having been rejected after the order of acquittal was passed by the Criminal Law Court, the respondents are required to revisit their decision in the light of the law laid down in the case of Avatar Singh v. Union of India, 2016 (8) SCC 471 and the principle enunciated vide paragraph 38 runs as follows: “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. 3 WRIA No. 14197 of 2025

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 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. 4 WRIA No. 14197 of 2025

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 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. It is submitted further that in identical set of facts, writ petition was filed by one Naveen Rajhansh being writ A No. 6543 of 2023, Naveen Rajhans, State of U.P and 5 Others, decided on 28.4.2023, who was selected in Civil Police, but was not being offered appointment only on account of pending criminal case. This Court considered this aspect of 5 WRIA No. 14197 of 2025 the matter in the light of judgment of Avtar Singh (supra) and allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order with a further direction to process appointment of that petitioner.

5. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that it was a criminal case instituted in the year 2018 which ought to have been disclosed by the petitioner but he concealed it intentionally to get himself selected, however, he does not dispute the legal proposition as discussed in the case of Naveen Rajhansh and also another judgment of the High Court in the case of Sonu Yadav v. State of U.P. and 5 Others, Writ A No. 4577 of 2019, decided on 8th January, 2021.

6. In the considered view of the Court and considering the principle laid down in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), petitioner's candidature deserves to be reconsidered by asking a fresh police verification report and character certificate. Accordingly, respondent no.4 is directed to obtain fresh police verification report and character certificate within a period of six weeks of production of certified copy of this order. Soon after obtaining report, concerned respondents-Senior Superintendent of Police shall proceed to take decision accordingly within a further period of four weeks.

7. In the circumstances, the order impugned dated 6 WRIA No. 14197 of 2025 Nil July, 2025 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur brought on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition is hereby quashed.

8. The writ petition thus stands allowed as above. September 19, 2025 Deepika (Ajit Kumar,J.) DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad