Police recruitment cannot be cancelled mechanically for a non-serious criminal case lacking moral turpitude.

Janmesh Kumar was selected and appointed as a Constable in the Civil Police at Aligarh and was thereafter transferred to Firozabad for training.

Approximately twenty days after joining, his appointment was cancelled on the ground that he had failed to disclose a pending criminal case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 and 504 IPC.

The case was subsequently compromised, and he was acquitted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 19 September 1997.

Kumar claimed that he was unaware of the criminal case when he submitted his recruitment affidavit and that he was either a juvenile or a young person when the case was registered.

The State contended that he had falsely declared that no criminal case was pending against him.

The learned Single Judge quashed the orders cancelling his appointment and rejecting his representation, and directed reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages.

The State challenged that decision by special appeal.

Whether the respondent deliberately suppressed or falsely declared the pendency of a criminal case while seeking appointment as a Police Constable, thereby justifying cancellation of his appointment?

Whether mere registration and subsequent compromise-based acquittal in a solitary case involving Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 and 504 IPC rendered the respondent unsuitable for appointment or retention in police service?

Whether the appointing authorities were required to assess the respondent’s overall character and suitability instead of mechanically cancelling his appointment solely on the ground of non-disclosure?

The Court applied the U.P. Government Order dated 28 April 1958, which requires the appointing authority to determine whether a candidate’s character renders him suitable for the relevant post and prescribes a reasoned character-verification process involving the police authorities and, in adverse cases, the District Magistrate.

The Government Order does not impose an automatic or blanket disqualification merely because a criminal case has been registered; the nature of the offence, the surrounding circumstances, and the candidate’s suitability must be assessed.

The Court relied on Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644, which permits a lenient approach toward youthful indiscretions involving non-serious offences.

Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., (2011) 14 SCC 709, which holds that the appointing authority must examine suitability and cannot mechanically cancel an appointment merely because a candidate omitted a criminal case that ended in acquittal.

It also applied Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, particularly the principles that suppression must be deliberate, the candidate’s knowledge must be established, applicable government instructions must be considered, and the seriousness of the offence and nature of the acquittal must be evaluated.

The Court found that the respondent’s date of birth was 5 July 1976, but the precise date of registration of the 1994 criminal case was not available; therefore, it could not conclusively determine whether he was a juvenile when the case was registered.

Nevertheless, he was a very young person at the relevant time, and his assertion that he was unaware of the pending case when he submitted his affidavit was considered plausible.

The State produced no material showing that he had obtained bail, participated in the investigation, or otherwise knew of the case before submitting his recruitment form.

Accordingly, deliberate suppression was not established.

In any event, the offences were compoundable, the case ended in compromise-based acquittal, and the allegations did not involve moral turpitude or a heinous offence such as murder, dacoity or rape.

Applying the 1958 Government Order and the principles in Sandeep Kumar, Ram Kumar and Avtar Singh, the Court held that the authorities were required to make an objective assessment of suitability.

Their mechanical conclusion that non-disclosure automatically invalidated the appointment failed to examine the respondent’s age, lack of demonstrated knowledge, nature of the offences, and acquittal.

The Court upheld the learned Single Judge’s decision quashing the orders dated 31 January 1998 and 24 March 2001 and directing the respondent’s reinstatement with continuity of service, but without back wages.

It held that the respondent had not deliberately suppressed the criminal case and that, even assuming knowledge of the case, the solitary and non-heinous nature of the allegations, the respondent’s youth, and the compromise-based acquittal did not justify cancellation of his appointment or denial of employment.