JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP-32824-2024.

2. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of communication dated 01.10.2024 whereby his candidature has been rejected on the ground that he was implicated in a criminal case.

3. The petitioner pursuant to Advertisement No. 3/2021 applied for the post of Intelligence Assistant (Constable) in the Intelligence Cadre and Constable in Punjab Police Investigation Cadre (PBI)-2021. He applied under Ex-Servicemen (Scheduled Caste) Category. He successfully cleared written test followed by physical measurement and physical screening test. The respondent, during verification of his credentials, found that an FIR No. 57 dated 12.09.2012 under Sections 498A, 406, 506, 34 IPC, P.S. Taragarh, Pathankot was registered against him. On account of said FIR, the respondent by impugned order has cancelled his candidature.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner inadvertently did not disclose in the application form factum of concluded trial wherein he was acquitted. There was no mala fide intention on his part. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2024) 5 SCC 264, while noticing its judgments in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 and Pawan Kumar v. Union of India and Anr., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 532, has held that Courts while adjudicating such matters should consider antecedents, nature of offence, timing of criminal case, overall judgment of acquittal, nature of query in application/verification form and socio-economic strata of the candidate before adjudicating claim of the candidate. The petitioner belongs to poor strata of the society and was not involved in a serious crime or crime involving moral turpitude. Court may take lenient view. Denial of job would be great injustice and prejudice to him.

5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that petitioner did not disclose factum of concluded FIR in the application form. There was specific column in the application form. There was suppression on the part of petitioner, thus, despite acquittal prior to filing application form, he cannot be issued appointment letter. As per advertisement, his selection was liable to be dismissed summarily.

6. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

7. The conceded position emerging from record is that the petitioner served in the Indian Army for 17 years. He applied for the post of Constable under Ex-Serviceman Category. He cleared all the stages of recruitment process, however, was denied appointment letter on account of non-disclosure of FIR registered against him. He was implicated in FIR under Section 498A, 406, 506 IPC. He was acquitted vide judgment dated 11.01.2018 passed by trial Court. Appeal against acquittal came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.09.2019 passed by learned ASJ Pathankot. The petitioner filed application form in August’ 2021. By the said date, he had already been acquitted by trial Court and appeal filed by State stood dismissed. In the application form there was column with respect to FIR or criminal case ever registered against the candidate. The petitioner did not disclose factum of criminal case which was registered against him. It amounted to suppression of facts on his part. The respondent has cancelled his appointment on the ground of suppression of factum of FIR.

8. A three-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra) has adverted to question of appointment of a candidate who was/is involved in a criminal case. The Court after noticing a plethora of judgments has culled out legal position as below:

“38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In vi