Rule 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015, amended in 2017, requires character verification to be completed under the supervision of the appointing authority before an appointment letter is issued and before a candidate is sent for training, and provides that a candidate shall be declared unfit if an adverse fact comes to light.

The Court observed that “no criteria or procedure is provided in the said Rule in order to determine as to whether and under which parameter a candidate is to be declared unfit”.

The Government Order dated 28.04.1958, which supplies the modalities of character verification before first appointment, provides in Note (a) to paragraph 3 that a conviction need not by itself involve refusal of a certificate of good character, and that the circumstances of the conviction are to be taken into account.

Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held,

“The reliance placed by respondent authorities on the instructions issued by Director General of Police dated 05.04.2025 will not override the provisions of Government Order dated 28.04.1958, which still hold field in the matter of issuance of character certificate in case of first employment of the government employee.”

Petitioner appeared in the U.P. Police Constable Civil Police Direct Recruitment, 2023 and was placed at serial no. 90 of the select list. At the stage of medical examination and character verification he filed an affidavit disclosing a single criminal case pending against him, Case Crime No. 100 of 2022, Police Station Dubhar, District Ballia, under Sections 323, 324, 352, 452 and 504 IPC, in which a charge sheet had been submitted on 15.11.2022.

He was finally selected and allotted District Prayagraj for the Joint Training Course, but was refused joining. An earlier writ petition was disposed of on 17.10.2025 with a direction to file a comprehensive representation, which the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Commissionerate Prayagraj rejected by order dated 25.11.2025, relying on the Director General of Police's letter dated 05.04.2025 and the Government Order dated 28.04.1958.

In the counter affidavit, the State pleaded that the District Magistrate, Ballia had twice declined to recommend character verification, on 13.06.2025 and 11.07.2025, on the strength of the registration of the case and the submission of the charge sheet, and that the Joint Director Prosecution, Ballia had opined that the petitioner was involved in a case of moral turpitude.

Counsel for petitioner argued that pendency of a criminal case could not by itself defeat appointment without a finding on the nature of the offence, and that the petitioner had concealed nothing. Standing Counsel submitted that the charges were grave, that the police force required persons of unblemished character. It was argued that disclosure did not entitle a candidate to appointment once the appointing authority had consciously decided against him.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Avtar Singh v. Union of India that where the pendency of a criminal case of a trivial nature has been truthfully declared in the character verification form, the employer may, in the facts and circumstances, appoint the candidate subject to the outcome of that case. Examining the impugned order, it held

“Respondent No. 3 has merely accepted the recommendation of District Magistrate, Ballia and Superintendent of Police, Ballia and has not independently recorded any finding on the candidature of the petitioner that whether mere pendency of criminal case of trivial nature, as disclosed by the petitioner, it would not be proper to appoint the petitioner as per the Government Order dated 28.04.1958. The appointing authority has to make an independent consideration after considering the reports submitted before them.”

The Court observed that the FIR made only general allegations without assigning any specific role to the petitioner, that it arose out of a complaint over the first informant's cattle having injured the petitioner's brother, and that the petitioner's entire family had been booked in it.

Holding that it would not interfere with the discretion of the appointing authority unless it had been exercised arbitrarily, the Court observed

“Respondent No. 3 has not given any consideration to the nature of charge levelled against the petitioner in F.I.R. and the fact that the F.I.R. has been lodged on 02.07.2022 and more than four years have passed yet trial has not been concluded. In such view of the fact, this Court finds that the petitioner cannot be denied appointment on the basis of criminal case, more so when the order impugned has been passed without application of the mind.”

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the order dated 25.11.2025 was set aside, with a direction to respondent No. 3 to pass a fresh order in the light of the Court's observations.