Appointment Letter For Police Recruitment Can't Be Rescinded Over Non-Disclosure Of FIR Cancelled Before Application: P&H High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the cancellation of appointment of a Haryana Police constable whose candidature was terminated for allegedly not disclosing an FIR that had already been cancelled by the trial court prior to submission of the application and attestation form.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal referring to Punjab Police Rules (as applicable to Haryana) said, "There is no sub- column mandating the candidates to disclose status of an FIR which has already been cancelled. Column No. 13(I)(a) is applicable in case of arrest; (b) in case of prosecution; (c) in case of detention; (d) in case of bound down; (e) in case of fine imposed by Court; and (f) in case of conviction by Court; and Clause (i) in case, any case is pending in Court of law or with Police at the time of filing attestation form to pending criminal case."

The Court added that the petitioner was indubitably implicated in an FIR, however, police filed cancellation report prior to his date of filing application as well as attestation form. The trial court accepted cancellation report prior to filing attestation form. 

"None of the column asked the petitioner to disclose cancelled FIR, thus, there was no occasion for him to disclose cancelled FIR," it emphasised.

The petitioner had applied for the post of Constable pursuant to Advertisement issued in 2015 and successfully cleared the written examination, physical measurement and screening tests. He submitted the verification-cum-attestation form on June 24, 2017.

During verification, it was found that an FIR dated September 29, 2013 under Sections 420 and 120 IPC had been registered against him at Police Station East Shimla. However, the police had filed a cancellation report, which was accepted by the trial court on September 26, 2014.

A departmental committee examined the petitioner's suitability and recommended his appointment. Accordingly, he was issued an appointment letter on July 13, 2017. However, by order dated December 8, 2017, his appointment was cancelled on the ground that he had not disclosed the said FIR in the attestation form, allegedly violating Rule 12.18(4) of the Punjab Police Rules.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR stood cancelled much before the issuance of the advertisement in 2015 and before the submission of the attestation form. It was argued that the attestation form did not contain any column requiring disclosure of a cancelled FIR. There was no concealment, particularly when the departmental committee had already examined the police verification report and recommended his appointment.

Reliance was placed on Supreme Court judgments including Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024), Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016), and Pawan Kumar v. Union of India (2022), to contend that courts must consider the nature of offence, antecedents, acquittal, nature of disclosure sought and socio-economic background before denying public employment.

On the other hand, the State contended that Rule 12.18 mandates disclosure of FIRs irrespective of outcome and that non-disclosure itself warranted outright cancellation of appointment.

After examining the Rules, the Court noted that, "a candidate is ineligible to apply only if an FIR is lodged and charges are framed. In the present case, no charges were ever framed and the FIR had been cancelled even before the petitioner applied."

The Court noted that the attestation form did not require disclosure of FIRs that had already been cancelled. It further held that prosecution commences only upon cognizance by a court, which never occurred in the petitioner's case.

Interpreting Rule 12.18(3), the Court held that the petitioner's case was squarely covered under clauses (c) and (d), which permit appointment where an FIR is cancelled and such cancellation is accepted by the trial court.

The Court also relied upon Supreme Court precedents in Avtar Singh, Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2023), and Ravindra Kumar, reiterating that mere suppression, even if assumed, does not automatically justify cancellation without examining the nature of offence, acquittal, and overall circumstances.

Holding that the cancellation order was illegal and unsustainable, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order passed in 2017.

The respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to rejoin service within four weeks. However, the Court clarified that the period during which the petitioner remained out of service would not count for service benefits.

 Mr. G.S. Gopera, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Akshit Pathania, AAG, Haryana.

Title: Ravinder v. State of Haryana and Others

Click here to read order