Punjab Police Rules | P&H High Court Directs DGP To Reconsider Candidature Of Constable Aspirant Accused In Road Accident Case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Director General of Police, Haryana, to reconsider the candidature of a Constable aspirant whose appointment was rejected on the ground that he had been facing trial in a road accident case at the time of antecedent verification.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal noted as per Punjab Police Rule (as applicable in Haryana), "where charges have been framed against a candidate for offence(s) involving moral turpitude or which is punishable for imprisonment of three years of more, he shall not be considered for appointment. The petitioner was implicated in a car accident. Offence of vehicular accident does not involve moral turpitude. He was charged for committing offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC and 181 of MV Act. None of the aforesaid offence(s) is/are punishable with imprisonment of three years or more."

The Court pointed that, the competent authority was supposed to examine the matter in totality. Clause (b) of aforesaid Rule is carved out in negative form. It provides that candidate shall not be considered if charges are framed for offences discussed therein. It means if charges are framed for any other offence, the competent authority may consider for appointment, it added.

The petitioner had applied for the post of Male Constable (GD) and cleared all stages of selection. During the pendency of the recruitment process, he was implicated in FIR  under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, relating to a road accident.

In compliance with Rule 12.18 of the PPR, he disclosed the pending FIR in the verification-cum-attestation form. During verification in September 2023, the Superintendent of Police and District Attorney informed the competent authority that the case was pending trial. The petitioner was eventually acquitted on 03.05.2025, the Trial Court holding that the complainant's version was hearsay and unsupported by evidence.

Despite his representation seeking permission to join, the authority rejected his candidature on 18.08.2025, citing Rule 12.18(3)(c) on the ground that the acquittal occurred after verification.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that, No FIR was pending when the petitioner applied and hr cleared all stages of examination and made full and true disclosure of the pending criminal case.

The rejection was solely on the ground that he was not acquitted prior to verification.

The Court held that Rule 12.18(3)(c) had been wrongly invoked. A conjoint reading of Rules 12.16(4), 12.18(2) and 12.18(3) revealed that, Clause (b) (the bar on appointment) applies where charges are framed for offences involving moral turpitude or punishable with three years or more, which was not the case.

It emphasised that the Supreme Court in Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P, wherein it required authorities to evaluate the nature of the offence, timing and outcome of the case, conduct of the candidate, and the contents of the verification report holistically.

In the present case the petitioner was acquitted, had disclosed the case fully, and the offences alleged were minor and not of a nature involving moral turpitude, the Court observed.

Hence, directing the DGP Haryana to reconsider the case of the petitioner, the Court said, if he is found eligible, the petitioner's date of joining shall be treated as his date of appointment for all service benefits.

Mr. Abhijeet Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Additional Advocate General, Haryana

Title: Amit Kumar v. State of Haryana and others 

Click here to read order