Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 49
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 196 OF 2026
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) No.20292 of 2025)
STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
DINESH KUMAR … RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave Granted.
2. The State of Uttar Pradesh is in appeal against the
judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 69 of 2025 passed by the
nd
Division Bench on 22 May 2025, affirming the order of
learned Single Judge in Writ A. No.817 of 2024 which had been
preferred by the respondent when the appellant(s) herein
cancelled his appointment as Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari. The
learned Single Judge had allowed the application vide judgment
Signature Not Verified
th
dated 5 November 2024.
Digitally signed by
RAJNI MUKHI
Date: 2026.01.12
16:59:57 IST
Reason:
C.A. No. ____/2026@SLP(C) No.20292 of 2025 Page 1 of 6
3. In short, the facts are that the Uttar Pradesh Public
th
Service Commission issued an advertisement dated 5 March
2021 notifying the examination for recruitment of Samiksha
Adhikari/Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari. The respondent was
selected therein and pursuant to such a selection he was asked
to furnish an attestation form and subsequently a verification
form also. In both forms, particular questions have been put to
the applicant whether there were any criminal cases pending
against them. In both instances, the respondent had answered in
the negative. The attestation form is Annexure P1 of the record
and the verification form is Annexure P2. In actuality, there
were two cases pending against him being Case Crime No.198
of 2019 under Section 147, 323, 504, 506 and 325 of Indian
1
Penal Code,1860 ; and Case Crime No.215 of 2018 under
Section(s) 354D of IPC and Section 12 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
4. This fact of pending criminal proceedings against the
respondent came to the fore in two ways. The appellant(s) had
asked the concerned Superintendent of Police for character
verification wherein such fact was discovered and as such,
opinion from the learned District Magistrate was sought as to
the suitability of him being appointed. The said Authority held
1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’
C.A. No. ____/2026@SLP(C) No.20292 of 2025 Page 2 of 6
him to be suitable. On the other hand, according to the
respondent, unaware of the verification proceedings, on his own
volition he filed an affidavit clarifying the position and
declaring the pendency of two cases against him.
5. Consequent to such fact being admitted/discovered, the
appellant(s) moved to cancel his appointment which has led to
the present proceedings. The Single Judge allowed the writ
petition against cancellation taking note of the facts that the
District Magistrate had found no legal impediment in his
appointment; he had not been charge-sheeted in the offences
alleged against him; mere non-disclosure is not always fatal; he
has been acquitted in the other case; and also he had himself,
albeit subsequently, disclosed the cases against him. The
Division Bench upheld these findings, calling the undisclosed
information ‘ of trivial nature ’.
6. Proper and complete disclosure in applications for
government employment is not a simple procedural formality,
but a basic requirement rooted in fairness, integrity, and public
trust. Government posts attract hundreds, and often thousands,
of applicants for a single vacancy, each competing under the
same stated conditions, scrupulous vetting of every candidate
becomes imperative and essential to ensure a level playing field
and to protect the credibility of the selection process. When an
applicant withholds information about criminal antecedents, it
C.A. No. ____/2026@SLP(C) No.20292 of 2025 Page 3 of 6
undermines this process by depriving the appointing authority
of the opportunity to make a fully informed assessment of
suitability. While the law recognizes that non-disclosure,
depending on the nature of the offence and surrounding
circumstances, may not invariably be fatal to a candidature, it
nevertheless remains a serious lapse. The gravity is
significantly compounded when the non-disclosure is repeated,
as it ceases to be accidental or inadvertent and instead reflects
deliberate concealment. Such strikes at the core of trust reposed
in candidates for public service, where honesty and
transparency are indispensable attributes, and justify a far
stricter view by the authorities.
7. We notice that both, the attestation form as also the
verification form extracted hereunder, furnish a disclaimer in
the following terms:
“1. Giving any false information in this application or
concealing any material information will be treated as
disqualification and may render the candidate unfit for
Government service.”
… … …
“Disclaimer
2. Furnishing of false information in the verification form or
suppression of any material information will be punishable and
the candidate will be ineligible for employment under the
Government. After completing and submitting this form, if the
candidate is detained, arrested or convicted of any illegal act,
fined, deported or acquitted of a crime etc, the same should be
immediately sent to the authorities to whom the verification
form was submitted earlier, failing which it will be treated as
suppression of material information.
3. If, any person is found to have concealed any factual
C.A. No. ____/2026@SLP(C) No.20292 of 2025 Page 4 of 6
information or submitted incorrect information in the
verification form at any time during his service period, his
tenure is liable to be terminated.
… …
…”
8. Despite this clear stipulation as extracted supra the
respondent submitted otherwise than the truth which was that
there were cases pending against him. The acquittal/dropping of
proceedings against him were subsequent developments and at
the time of filling up of the forms the investigation in the case
was active so also at the time of the affidavit. Since the
disclaimer makes it clear that concealment of information
would render the applicant ineligible/unfit for government
service, what is the clincher is the status of the cases as
disclosed at the time of filing of the forms. It cannot be disputed
that at the relevant time, he submitted incorrect and false
information.
9. In urging this Court to look at circumstances in his favour
2
in accordance with Avtar Singh v Union of India and
3
Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P , he points out inter-alia his
age which is approximately 45, the fact that he gave the
affidavit prior to initiation of cancellation of appointment
proceedings, the District Magistrate has placed on record his
fitness for appointment. We are of the considered view that
2 (2016) 8 SCC 471
3 (2024) 5 SCC 264
C.A. No. ____/2026@SLP(C) No.20292 of 2025 Page 5 of 6
none of these factors would justify overlooking the fact that at
the relevant point in time he concealed the information. There is
a maxim in law to the effect that ‘ juda lex sed lex ’ which means
the law may be harsh, but the law is law. The factum that he
said ‘ no ’ to pending proceedings against him not once but twice,
shows demonstrated mal-intent and is in direct contravention of
the disclaimer(s) given in the forms. Subsequent acquittal or the
fact that he attempted to come clean about the suppression of
facts cannot accrue to his benefit.
10. It is also settled position in law that sympathy cannot
supplant law. As such, while we acknowledge that loss of a
government job is not an easy loss to come to terms with, at the
same time awareness of consequences is a necessary component
of actions. The Appeal is allowed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………………………………..J.
(SANJAY KAROL )
……………………………………………...J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
New Delhi
January 12, 2026
C.A. No. ____/2026@SLP(C) No.20292 of 2025 Page 6 of 6
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 196 OF 2026
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) No.20292 of 2025)
STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
DINESH KUMAR … RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave Granted.
2. The State of Uttar Pradesh is in appeal against the
judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 69 of 2025 passed by the
nd
Division Bench on 22 May 2025, affirming the order of
learned Single Judge in Writ A. No.817 of 2024 which had been
preferred by the respondent when the appellant(s) herein
cancelled his appointment as Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari. The
learned Single Judge had allowed the application vide judgment
Signature Not Verified
th
dated 5 November 2024.
Digitally signed by
RAJNI MUKHI
Date: 2026.01.12
16:59:57 IST
Reason:
C.A. No. ____/2026@SLP(C) No.20292 of 2025 Page 1 of 6
3. In short, the facts are that the Uttar Pradesh Public
th
Service Commission issued an advertisement dated 5 March
2021 notifying the examination for recruitment of Samiksha
Adhikari/Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari. The respondent was
selected therein and pursuant to such a selection he was asked
to furnish an attestation form and subsequently a verification
form also. In both forms, particular questions have been put to
the applicant whether there were any criminal cases pending
against them. In both instances, the respondent had answered in
the negative. The attestation form is Annexure P1 of the record
and the verification form is Annexure P2. In actuality, there
were two cases pending against him being Case Crime No.198
of 2019 under Section 147, 323, 504, 506 and 325 of Indian
1
Penal Code,1860 ; and Case Crime No.215 of 2018 under
Section(s) 354D of IPC and Section 12 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
4. This fact of pending criminal proceedings against the
respondent came to the fore in two ways. The appellant(s) had
asked the concerned Superintendent of Police for character
verification wherein such fact was discovered and as such,
opinion from the learned District Magistrate was sought as to
the suitability of him being appointed. The said Authority held
1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’
C.A. No. ____/2026@SLP(C) No.20292 of 2025 Page 2 of 6
him to be suitable. On the other hand, according to the
respondent, unaware of the verification proceedings, on his own
volition he filed an affidavit clarifying the position and
declaring the pendency of two cases against him.
5. Consequent to such fact being admitted/discovered, the
appellant(s) moved to cancel his appointment which has led to
the present proceedings. The Single Judge allowed the writ
petition against cancellation taking note of the facts that the
District Magistrate had found no legal impediment in his
appointment; he had not been charge-sheeted in the offences
alleged against him; mere non-disclosure is not always fatal; he
has been acquitted in the other case; and also he had himself,
albeit subsequently, disclosed the cases against him. The
Division Bench upheld these findings, calling the undisclosed
information ‘ of trivial nature ’.
6. Proper and complete disclosure in applications for
government employment is not a simple procedural formality,
but a basic requirement rooted in fairness, integrity, and public
trust. Government posts attract hundreds, and often thousands,
of applicants for a single vacancy, each competing under the
same stated conditions, scrupulous vetting of every candidate
becomes imperative and essential to ensure a level playing field
and to protect the credibility of the selection process. When an
applicant withholds information about criminal antecedents, it
C.A. No. ____/2026@SLP(C) No.20292 of 2025 Page 3 of 6
undermines this process by depriving the appointing authority
of the opportunity to make a fully informed assessment of
suitability. While the law recognizes that non-disclosure,
depending on the nature of the offence and surrounding
circumstances, may not invariably be fatal to a candidature, it
nevertheless remains a serious lapse. The gravity is
significantly compounded when the non-disclosure is repeated,
as it ceases to be accidental or inadvertent and instead reflects
deliberate concealment. Such strikes at the core of trust reposed
in candidates for public service, where honesty and
transparency are indispensable attributes, and justify a far
stricter view by the authorities.
7. We notice that both, the attestation form as also the
verification form extracted hereunder, furnish a disclaimer in
the following terms:
“1. Giving any false information in this application or
concealing any material information will be treated as
disqualification and may render the candidate unfit for
Government service.”
… … …
“Disclaimer
2. Furnishing of false information in the verification form or
suppression of any material information will be punishable and
the candidate will be ineligible for employment under the
Government. After completing and submitting this form, if the
candidate is detained, arrested or convicted of any illegal act,
fined, deported or acquitted of a crime etc, the same should be
immediately sent to the authorities to whom the verification
form was submitted earlier, failing which it will be treated as
suppression of material information.
3. If, any person is found to have concealed any factual
C.A. No. ____/2026@SLP(C) No.20292 of 2025 Page 4 of 6
information or submitted incorrect information in the
verification form at any time during his service period, his
tenure is liable to be terminated.
… …
…”
8. Despite this clear stipulation as extracted supra the
respondent submitted otherwise than the truth which was that
there were cases pending against him. The acquittal/dropping of
proceedings against him were subsequent developments and at
the time of filling up of the forms the investigation in the case
was active so also at the time of the affidavit. Since the
disclaimer makes it clear that concealment of information
would render the applicant ineligible/unfit for government
service, what is the clincher is the status of the cases as
disclosed at the time of filing of the forms. It cannot be disputed
that at the relevant time, he submitted incorrect and false
information.
9. In urging this Court to look at circumstances in his favour
2
in accordance with Avtar Singh v Union of India and
3
Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P , he points out inter-alia his
age which is approximately 45, the fact that he gave the
affidavit prior to initiation of cancellation of appointment
proceedings, the District Magistrate has placed on record his
fitness for appointment. We are of the considered view that
2 (2016) 8 SCC 471
3 (2024) 5 SCC 264
C.A. No. ____/2026@SLP(C) No.20292 of 2025 Page 5 of 6
none of these factors would justify overlooking the fact that at
the relevant point in time he concealed the information. There is
a maxim in law to the effect that ‘ juda lex sed lex ’ which means
the law may be harsh, but the law is law. The factum that he
said ‘ no ’ to pending proceedings against him not once but twice,
shows demonstrated mal-intent and is in direct contravention of
the disclaimer(s) given in the forms. Subsequent acquittal or the
fact that he attempted to come clean about the suppression of
facts cannot accrue to his benefit.
10. It is also settled position in law that sympathy cannot
supplant law. As such, while we acknowledge that loss of a
government job is not an easy loss to come to terms with, at the
same time awareness of consequences is a necessary component
of actions. The Appeal is allowed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………………………………..J.
(SANJAY KAROL )
……………………………………………...J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
New Delhi
January 12, 2026
C.A. No. ____/2026@SLP(C) No.20292 of 2025 Page 6 of 6