Pendency Of Criminal Case With General Matrimonial Allegations No Ground To Deny Job: Allahabad High Court
Upasna Agrawal
6 April 2026 3:00 PM IST
The Allahabad High Court has held that an employer cannot deny appointment for mere pendency of criminal case against the candidate, which arises out of matrimonial dispute.
Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar held,
“...the pendency of the criminal case, based on general allegations arising out of a matrimonial dispute, does not constitute a valid ground to deny appointment to the petitioner.”
Petitioner had applied for the post of Junior Assistant pursuant to an advertisement issued by the U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission. On being successful, petitioner was allotted the Department of Cane and Sugar Commissioner, U.P. through the online Department Allotment System. Petitioner had disclosed the pendency of the criminal case under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which resulted from matrimonial discord, between his brother and his wife, prior to the advertisement.
However, upon representation, petitioner was denied appointment based solely on the pendency of the criminal case against him in which he was co-accused while his brother was the main accused.
In Avtar Singh v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that,
“In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.”
The Court observed that the petitioner had truthfully disclosed the pendency of the criminal case. It noted that the allegations against the petitioner were general and vague in nature and his brother was the main accused in the case. It held that though the offences were cognizable, the gravity of them did not make petitioner unfit for employment.
“In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (supra), while referring to Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, has observed in paragraphs 8 and 9 that youthful indiscretions and minor offences ought not to result in branding a person as a criminal for life, and that the approach should be reformative rather than punitive. The Court illustrated this principle by referring to the character "Jean Valjean" from Victor Hugo's novel Les Misérables, emphasizing that minor infractions, particularly those arising from personal or family circumstances, deserve to be condoned rather than resulting in lifelong adverse consequences.”
Holding that a criminal case with general allegations arising out a matrimonial dispute does not constitute valid ground for denying appointment, the Court directed issuance of appointment letter to the petitioner which would remain subject to the outcome of criminal trial.
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Verma v. State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Deptt. Of Cane And Sugar And Ors.