UP Police Recruitment | Non-Disclosure Of Pending Criminal Case Not Suppression Where Form Only Asked About Conviction: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that where the online application form for police recruitment only required a candidate to declare that he had never been convicted, his failure to disclose a pending criminal case cannot by itself be treated as a false declaration or deliberate suppression. It held that cancellation of candidature on such ground must reflect consideration of the factors...
The Allahabad High Court has held that where the online application form for police recruitment only required a candidate to declare that he had never been convicted, his failure to disclose a pending criminal case cannot by itself be treated as a false declaration or deliberate suppression.
It held that cancellation of candidature on such ground must reflect consideration of the factors laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and an order merely reciting the criminal case is arbitrary.
Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held,
“In the absence of a specific query, non-disclosure at the application stage cannot, without more, be equated with a false declaration or deliberate suppression of the kind contemplated in Avtar Singh case (supra).”
Petitioner applied online in February 2016 for the post of Constable pursuant to an advertisement dated 29.12.2015 issued by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board. The online form carried a pre-fixed declaration that the candidate had never been convicted by any court, with no column for disclosing a pending criminal case. Clause 7 of the advertisement, however, empowered the Board to cancel candidature for concealment of material facts or pendency of a criminal case.
Petitioner cleared the physical efficiency test and came within the zone of consideration. During police verification, it was found that a case under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 IPC, registered in 2014, was pending against him at Police Station Bisalpur, District Pilibhit. He was acquitted on 25.08.2018, with the prosecution witnesses deposing that no such incident had taken place.
After fresh character verification, the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit found him suitable and he was sent for training at Sitapur. However, the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur cancelled his candidature by order dated 02.01.2019 on grounds of criminal antecedents and concealment through a false declaration.
Challenging the cancellation of candidature, counsel for petitioner pleaded that the declaration was factually correct as petitioner had never been convicted. It was argued that petitioner was a minor of about 17 years when the FIR was lodged, the offences were trivial and he had been cleanly acquitted.
Counsel for State pleaded that petitioner was bound by Clause 7 of the advertisement and had deliberately suppressed the case both in the online form and in the affidavit submitted at the time of joining. It was argued that the standard of scrutiny for a disciplined force is higher and the subsequent acquittal could not wipe out the concealment.
The Court observed that as per Avtar Singh, the employer's discretion in cases of suppression is not unfettered and it must consider, among other things, whether the candidate was expressly asked to disclose the fact, the nature of the offence, the result of the case and the age of the candidate at the time.
It noted that in Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. the Supreme Court had read down the very Government Order dated 28.04.1958 relied upon by the respondents to require a case-specific determination.
The Court observed that the offences arose out of a quarrel and did not involve moral turpitude, and the acquittal was on merits and not by benefit of doubt. Noting that petitioner was a minor when the FIR was registered, it held that,
“an indiscretion of this nature at such a young age cannot be visited with the civil consequence of being denied a livelihood, more so when it did not result in conviction.”
The Court further noted that the impugned order neither referred to the verification by the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit, nor discussed the nature of the offence, the age of petitioner or the result of the trial. It held that,
“it was not open to respondent no.4 to reverse that considered satisfaction by a bald, non-speaking order that does not engage with any of the Avtar Singh case (supra) factors.”
Holding the impugned order to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court quashed the same. The respondents were directed to treat petitioner as validly selected and permit him to undergo training or issue the appointment letter within eight weeks, without reconsidering the issue of suppression.
The Court clarified that the order shall not be treated as a precedent where the offence is grave, involves moral turpitude or the candidate stands convicted.
Case Title - Raju Gangwar vs. State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 741
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 741