Deliberate suppression of pending criminal charges disqualifies police recruitment notwithstanding subsequent acquittal.

The petitioner applied for appointment as Police Sub-Inspector under Advertisement No. 1 of 2017 and successfully cleared the physical test, mains examination and physical evaluation test.

During the recruitment process, he was accused in Delha P.S. Case No. 115 of 2018, registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504 and 506/34 IPC.

In the character-verification form submitted on 29 April 2019, the petitioner answered “No” to the questions concerning involvement in criminal cases, despite the pendency of the criminal case and submission of charge-sheet on 30 September 2018.

By Memo No. 1337 dated 17 August 2019, the authorities cancelled his candidature on the ground of suppression of criminal antecedents, relying on Rule 673 of the Bihar Police Manual and the Supreme Court’s decision in Civil Appeal No. 8638 of 2011.

The petitioner was subsequently acquitted by the Sessions Court on 20 January 2021 by giving him the benefit of doubt and thereafter sought reconsideration of his candidature.

He also contended that the cancellation was made without a prior show-cause notice.

1. Whether cancellation of the petitioner’s candidature for suppressing the pendency of a criminal case in the character-verification form was legally sustainable under the Bihar Police Manual and applicable Supreme Court precedents?

2. Whether the petitioner’s subsequent acquittal entitled him to reconsideration or appointment notwithstanding the earlier suppression of his criminal antecedent?

3. Whether the impugned cancellation order was liable to be quashed for violation of natural justice in the absence of a prior show-cause notice?

The Court applied Rule 673 of the Bihar Police Manual, which requires verification of a candidate’s character and antecedents and permits removal where the candidate’s statement is false; it also referred to Rule 668, which treats a false declaration regarding criminal antecedents as disqualifying.

Relying principally on Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, the Court held that information sought in a verification form must be truthfully disclosed, and suppression may independently justify cancellation of candidature, subject to an objective assessment of the circumstances, the nature of the post and the applicable rules.

Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal, (2013) 9 SCC 363 establishes that suppression of a pending criminal case is distinct from the pendency of the case itself and may constitute material misrepresentation even where the person is later acquitted.

Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P., (2012) 8 SCC 748 and Delhi Administration v. Sushil Kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605 recognise the heightened requirement of integrity and suitability for police and other disciplined services, where antecedents are relevant independently of the ultimate result of the criminal case.

The Court also relied on Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. v. Anil Kanwariya, (2021) 10 SCC 136, holding that the central concern is the candidate’s credibility and trustworthiness in making the initial declaration, not merely the triviality of the dispute or the subsequent acquittal.

The Court found that the character-verification form specifically required disclosure of criminal involvement and that the petitioner had consciously answered “No” despite being an accused in a pending case for serious offences and despite the subsequent filing of a charge-sheet.

Under Rule 673 and the principles in Avtar Singh, the suppression itself was material and could independently justify cancellation, particularly because the post was in the police force and demanded a high standard of integrity.

The later acquittal did not cure the earlier false declaration; moreover, the acquittal was on the basis of benefit of doubt and was not an honourable or clean acquittal.

The Court also noted that the petitioner did not promptly challenge the cancellation or explain the alleged inadvertent omission, raising the issue only after his acquittal.

The precedent in Umesh Kumar Chaudhary was distinguished because, unlike that case, the petitioner here neither disclosed the criminal case in the verification form nor promptly clarified the omission after cancellation.

In view of the specific declaration, attributable knowledge, nature of the offences and the requirements of a disciplined police service, the Court found no perversity or arbitrariness warranting interference.

The cancellation of his candidature under Rule 673 of the Bihar Police Manual was found lawful and sustainable.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed for want of merit, with no direction for appointment or reconsideration.