Akhilesh Kumar vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

1. Heard Sri Rishabh Kesarwani, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 7th July, 2025, whereby his candidature for the post of constable pursuant to the U.P. Police Direct Recruitment-2023 has been rejected only on the ground of pendency of criminal case arising out of Case Crime No.- 235 of 2023 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code.

3. It is contended that petitioner has disclosed the pendency of criminal cases on affidavit filed before the respondent inasmuch as petitioner has now been discharged of the offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. vide order of Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal on 9th July, 2025. It is, thus argued that the petitioner's case is liable to be revisited by the respondent in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others 2016 (8) SCC 471 in which vide paragraph 38 the Supreme Court has held thus: "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 2 WRIA No. 14388 of 2025 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 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 3 WRIA No. 14388 of 2025 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. On the contrary, learned Standing Counsel submits that petitioner has not been acquitted as such in the case rather discharged on the basis of the compromise and, therefore, an order of discharge may not be equated with an order of acquittal under criminal law, for consideration of employment. However, he could not dispute that the petitioner has no other criminal history to his credit as nothing has come out in the order impugned.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find that the impugned order rejecting the candidature of the petitioner has been passed solely on consideration of criminal case arising out of Case Crime No.- 235 of 2023 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, Police Station - Nakhasa, District Sambhal. If the order does not say anything about discharge in any manner, I find justification, therefor, as there was no occasion for the employer to have considered the order of discharge, the order of discharge having come to be passed only later on.

6. In the considered view of the Court, whether it is a case of acquittal or a case of discharge, if a person is not tried under criminal law even for the reason or discharge, it will be taken that he has stood absolved of the charges by a competent court of in such circumstances, he deserves reconsideration by the employer in the light of the principles laid down in the case of Autar Singh (supra), the relevant paragraphs of which have already been reproduced herein above. law and, therefore, 4 WRIA No. 14388 of 2025

7. It is true that employer can always exercise his discretion and he cannot be bound to accept candidature of a candidate for the purposes of employment once a candidate got implicated in a criminal case but in case of acquittal a different yardstick should be applied. Supreme Court has expressed its view that a mere involvement in a criminal case cannot be a ground for ifso facto rejection of candidature more especially in the circumstances, when a candidate may not be charged with moral turpitude.

8. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, therefore when petitioner has stood discharged from a criminal case, I consider it appropriate for the respondent to revisit the matter in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Autar Singh (supra) and pass appropriate order afresh.

9. In the circumstances, the order dated 7th July, 2025 passed by the respondent No.- 7 is hereby quashed.

10. The concerned respondent shall be passing order afresh within a period of one month from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order in the light of observations made herein above. September 23, 2025 Atmesh (Ajit Kumar,J.) ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Rishabh Kesarwani, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 7th July, 2025, whereby his candidature for the post of constable pursuant to the U.P. Police Direct Recruitment-2023 has been rejected only on the ground of pendency of criminal case arising out of Case Crime No.- 235 of 2023 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code.

3. It is contended that petitioner has disclosed the pendency of criminal cases on affidavit filed before the respondent inasmuch as petitioner has now been discharged of the offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. vide order of Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal on 9th July, 2025. It is, thus argued that the petitioner's case is liable to be revisited by the respondent in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others 2016 (8) SCC 471 in which vide paragraph 38 the Supreme Court has held thus: "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 2 WRIA No. 14388 of 2025 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 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 3 WRIA No. 14388 of 2025 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. On the contrary, learned Standing Counsel submits that petitioner has not been acquitted as such in the case rather discharged on the basis of the compromise and, therefore, an order of discharge may not be equated with an order of acquittal under criminal law, for consideration of employment. However, he could not dispute that the petitioner has no other criminal history to his credit as nothing has come out in the order impugned.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find that the impugned order rejecting the candidature of the petitioner has been passed solely on consideration of criminal case arising out of Case Crime No.- 235 of 2023 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, Police Station - Nakhasa, District Sambhal. If the order does not say anything about discharge in any manner, I find justification, therefor, as there was no occasion for the employer to have considered the order of discharge, the order of discharge having come to be passed only later on.

6. In the considered view of the Court, whether it is a case of acquittal or a case of discharge, if a person is not tried under criminal law even for the reason or discharge, it will be taken that he has stood absolved of the charges by a competent court of in such circumstances, he deserves reconsideration by the employer in the light of the principles laid down in the case of Autar Singh (supra), the relevant paragraphs of which have already been reproduced herein above. law and, therefore, 4 WRIA No. 14388 of 2025

7. It is true that employer can always exercise his discretion and he cannot be bound to accept candidature of a candidate for the purposes of employment once a candidate got implicated in a criminal case but in case of acquittal a different yardstick should be applied. Supreme Court has expressed its view that a mere involvement in a criminal case cannot be a ground for ifso facto rejection of candidature more especially in the circumstances, when a candidate may not be charged with moral turpitude.

8. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, therefore when petitioner has stood discharged from a criminal case, I consider it appropriate for the respondent to revisit the matter in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Autar Singh (supra) and pass appropriate order afresh.

9. In the circumstances, the order dated 7th July, 2025 passed by the respondent No.- 7 is hereby quashed.

10. The concerned respondent shall be passing order afresh within a period of one month from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order in the light of observations made herein above. September 23, 2025 Atmesh (Ajit Kumar,J.) ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad