Court holds that mere suppression of criminal antecedents without specific disclosure requirement, especially involving minor and acquitted candidate, cannot lead to automatic disqualification; calls for balanced consideration of offence nature, age, acquittal, and socio-economic factors.
In a significant judgment dated September 15, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), presided over by Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, set aside the cancellation of candidature of Mr. Raju Gangwar, who was selected for the post of Police Constable in Uttar Pradesh Police. The petitioner’s candidature was cancelled on grounds of suppression of pending criminal antecedents during recruitment, despite his subsequent honorable acquittal.
The petitioner had applied online for direct recruitment as a Police Constable pursuant to the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board’s advertisement dated December 29, 2015. The online application form required a declaration only regarding prior convictions, without any specific column for disclosure of pending criminal cases. The petitioner, at the age of 19, declared that he had never been convicted by any court, which was factually correct at that time as his trial was pending.
During police verification, it was revealed that a criminal case (Crime No. 1058A of 2014) under Sections 323, 325, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was pending against him. The petitioner was later acquitted honorably by the trial court on August 25, 2018, after prosecution witnesses stated no offence had taken place. Following the acquittal, the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit, conducted fresh character verification and deemed the petitioner fit for training and service.
However, despite this favorable verification, the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur, cancelled the petitioner’s candidature on January 2, 2019, citing suppression of criminal antecedents and relying on a 1958 Government Order and police headquarters’ letter. The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Court meticulously examined the legal principles governing disclosure of criminal antecedents in recruitment, emphasizing the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471. The Court underscored that employer discretion to cancel candidature must be exercised judiciously with due application of mind to factors such as:
- Nature of the post and duties attached;
- Whether the disclosure related to conviction, acquittal, or pending case;
- Whether the candidate was specifically required to disclose pending cases;
- Nature of the offence (grave or trivial, involving moral turpitude or not);
- Outcome of the trial (conviction, acquittal, or dismissal);
- Age and socio-economic background of the candidate at the time of the offence.
Applying these principles, the Court found that the online form did not require disclosure of pending criminal cases, and the petitioner’s declaration about no prior conviction was correct at the time of application. The offence was minor and did not involve moral turpitude. The petitioner was a minor at the time of the FIR, and the acquittal was honorable and merit-based, not merely on the benefit of doubt.
Further, the competent authorities had already verified the petitioner’s character post-acquittal and cleared him for training. The impugned cancellation order was a non-speaking, mechanical order that failed to consider these relevant factors and thus violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Court held that mere suppression of a pending case, without more, does not automatically disqualify a candidate, especially when there is an honorable acquittal and the employer had earlier found the candidate suitable. It stressed that the power to cancel candidature must not be exercised arbitrarily or without proper reasoning.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the cancellation order and directed the respondents to treat the petitioner as validly selected, permitting him to undergo training and issue the appointment letter within eight weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court clarified that this judgment is confined to the peculiar facts of the case and should not be treated as precedent in cases involving grave offences or convictions.
This judgment reinforces the principle that in police recruitment, fairness and judicious application of discretion are paramount, balancing the need for discipline with the rights and legitimate expectations of candidates, especially young persons with minor and acquitted criminal cases.
Bottom Line:
Recruitment process - Suppression of criminal antecedents by a candidate in police recruitment - Employer's discretion to cancel candidature must be exercised judiciously, considering relevant factors like nature of offence, age at the time of offence, acquittal, and socio-economic conditions.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Sections 323, 325, 504, 506; Article 14 of the Constitution of India; Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015.
Raju Gangwar v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2979178
