Court emphasizes appointing authority's duty to independently assess nature of offences, warns against denial of appointment solely on pendency of trivial criminal cases
In a significant judgment delivered on September 30, 2026, the Allahabad High Court quashed the cancellation of Suraj Kannaujiya's candidature for the post of Constable in the Civil Police, directing the appointing authority to reconsider his eligibility afresh after applying proper mind to the nature and gravity of pending criminal cases against him.
The petitioner, Suraj Kannaujiya, had appeared in the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable recruitment 2023 and was declared successful in the written examination. Following medical examination and character verification, his appointment was initially confirmed. However, a report from the Police Station Turkpatti, District Kushinagar, revealed the pendency of two criminal cases against him-one under Section 60 of the Excise Act and another non-cognizable report (NCR) under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar, recommended cancellation of his candidature. Relying on these recommendations, the Superintendent of Police, Mau, issued an order dated August 26, 2025, rejecting Kannaujiya's appointment.
Challenging this order, Kannaujiya contended before the High Court that mere pendency of criminal cases, especially of trivial nature, without an independent application of mind by the appointing authority, cannot justify denial of appointment. He highlighted that he had disclosed these cases truthfully and there was no concealment. He further pointed out that the NCR case was never investigated and the Excise Act case was pending trial for years. He argued that the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police had not independently evaluated the relevance and gravity of the pending cases before recommending cancellation.
The Court examined the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015, which empower the appointing authority to declare a candidate unfit on adverse facts during character verification. However, the Court noted that the impugned order lacked an independent assessment of the candidate's suitability, as it merely accepted the reports of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police without recording its own findings. The Court also referred to the Government Order dated April 28, 1958, which governs verification of character and antecedents for government servants. The Order clarifies that even conviction does not automatically disqualify a candidate; the circumstances of conviction, association with crimes involving moral turpitude or violence, and surrounding facts must be considered.
The judgment extensively relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016), which underscores that truthful disclosure of pending criminal cases does not automatically entitle or disentitle a candidate from appointment. The employer must consider the nature of the offences and the applicable government orders and rules. In cases involving trivial offences, the employer may exercise discretion to appoint the candidate, subject to the outcome of the criminal case.
Further, the Court drew upon precedents such as Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar (2011), SPO/Constable IRB Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2016), and Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra (2018), which emphasize rehabilitation, the significance of youth indiscretions, and the need for fair opportunity rather than mechanical rejection based on pendency of cases.
Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order dated August 26, 2025, and directed the Superintendent of Police, Mau, to reconsider Kannaujiya's candidature afresh, applying mind to the nature and gravity of the pending cases as well as the guidelines established in the Government Order of 1958 and relevant Supreme Court judgments. The Court advised that this reconsideration be completed expeditiously, preferably within two months.
This judgment reinforces the principle that mere pendency of criminal proceedings, particularly of a trivial or uninvestigated nature, cannot be the sole ground for denial of public employment in police services. It mandates that appointing authorities undertake a careful and independent evaluation of the candidate's character and suitability, ensuring fair treatment and adherence to legal standards.
Bottom Line:
Police recruitment - Cancellation of candidature on ground of pendency of criminal case - Appointing authority must independently assess nature of offence, applicable Government Orders and suitability of candidate - Mere pendency of criminal case, especially of trivial nature, without application of mind, cannot by itself justify denial of appointment.
Statutory provision(s):
Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015 (Rule 16), Section 60 of the Excise Act, Indian Penal Code Sections 323, 504, Police Act 1861 (Section 46), Government Order dated 28.04.1958 regarding character verification
Suraj Kannaujiya v. State of U.P., (All) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2992121
