IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Termination – Suppression of involvement in criminal cases – 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.
(2) Law may be harsh, but law is law – Sympathy cannot supplant law.

ORDER

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 Division Bench on 22nd 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 dated 5th November 2024.

3. In short, the facts are that the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission issued an advertisement dated 5th 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 Penal Code,1860 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’]; 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 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 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 fo