1. Candidature cancelled for alleged non-disclosure of a trivial criminal case which ended in honourable acquittal. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(All) 1400
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.
Raju Gangwar - Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow And Ors. - Respondents
WRIT - A No. - 4845 of 2019
Decided On : 15-09-2026
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Kapil Gupta, Ankit Kumar Trivedi, Arun Kumar Ojha, Sridhar Awasthi
For the Respondent: C.S.C.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Kapil Gupta, Ankit Kumar Trivedi, Arun Kumar Ojha, Sridhar Awasthi
For the Respondent: C.S.C.
Suppression of a pending criminal case does not automatically justify cancellation of candidature. Employers must judicially consider the nature of the offence, the candidate's age, and the trial's outcome (especially honorable acquittals), ensuring the decision is reasoned and not mechanical.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 and 226 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 - Public Employment - Suppression of criminal antecedents - Cancellation of candidature - Employer's discretion to verify antecedents is not unguided or unfettered - Required to consider nature of post, nature of offence, age of incumbent, and result of criminal case (honourable acquittal vs benefit of doubt) - A bald or formulaic order citing suppression without considering germane factors is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. (Paras 17, 22, 27)
(B) Non-disclosure of pending criminal case - Where online application form contains only a pre-fixed declaration regarding conviction and no specific column for pending cases, non-disclosure cannot be equated with deliberate suppression. (Para 23)
(C) Trivial offences committed at a young and impressionable age - Rigid approach rendering candidates unemployable for petty indiscretions defeats the Rule of Law and public interest. (Para 18)
Facts of the case:
A candidate for the post of Police Constable failed to disclose a pending criminal case involving trivial offences committed while he was a minor. He was subsequently honorably acquitted. Despite being cleared by the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police of his home district after the acquittal, his candidature was cancelled by the Superintendent of Police of the training district on the grounds of concealment of material facts and false declaration.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was non-speaking and mechanical, failing to consider the trivial nature of the offence, the age of the petitioner at the time of the incident, the nature of the acquittal, and the prior favorable verification by competent authorities who had already found the candidate suitable.
Issues: Whether the cancellation of candidature based on the non-disclosure of a pending criminal case, which resulted in an honorable acquittal and occurred when the candidate was a minor, is arbitrary and illegal given the specific format of the online application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power to cancel candidature for suppression of facts must be exercised judicially by considering the nature of the offence, the age of the candidate, and the result of the trial. Where the application form only asks about conviction and the candidate is honorably acquitted of a trivial offence committed as a minor, a mechanical order of cancellation without applying these factors is unsustainable.
Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned order quashed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner: no specific query about pending cases; Respondents: deliberate suppression disentitles appointment to disciplined force. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
3. Impugned order failed to consider Avtar Singh factors — trivial offence, minor age, honourable acquittal, favourable prior verification. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
4. Employer must apply mind to Avtar Singh factors before cancelling candidature for non-disclosure; mechanical order is arbitrary. (Para 17 , 27 , 28 )
5. Writ petition allowed; impugned cancellation order quashed; respondents directed to treat petitioner as validly selected. (Para 30 , 31 )
6. What factors must an employer consider before cancelling candidature for non-disclosure of a criminal case?
Employer must consider the gravity of offence, age of candidate, result of trial, nature of acquittal, and existence of a specific query in the application form. (Para 17 , 23 , 24 , 25 )
7. Can an honourable acquittal in a criminal case be a decisive factor in favour of a candidate who suppressed the case?
Yes, an honourable and merit-based acquittal is a factor that weighs decisively in the candidate's favour and must be given due weight by the employer. (Para 25 )
8. Does the absence of a specific column in the application form about pending cases affect a finding of deliberate suppression?
Yes, where no specific query about pending cases exists, non-disclosure at the application stage cannot be equated with deliberate suppression. (Para 23 )
9. Is a mechanical, non-speaking order cancelling candidature valid under Article 14?
No, such an order is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 as it fails to satisfy the requirement of due application of mind to relevant factors. (Para 27 )
10. Does a prior favourable character verification by competent authorities bind the appointing authority?
A subsequent authority cannot reverse a considered satisfaction recorded by the competent authority through a bald, non-speaking order without engaging with relevant factors. (Para 26 , 28 )
JUDGMENT :
ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.
1. Heard Shri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sridhar Awasthi and Shri Aryan Arora on behalf of petitioner and Shri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of opposite parties and perused the material available on record.
2. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, an advertisement/notification No. PRPB-1(82)/2015 was issued on 29.12.2015 by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board (hereinafter referred to as “respondent no.2”) for direct recruitment to the posts of Male Police Constable and Constable PAC and the petitioner applied online for the said posts.
3. As per the procedure prescribed in the advertisement, candidates were required to fill the said online application format after registration and submission of fees. The online application form contained a pre-fixed declaration to the effect that, each of the prospective candidates were required to give a declaration that he/she had never been ‘convicted’ by any Court of law. Further, there was no specific column or provision in the online application form requiring disclosure of a pending criminal case and the answer was to be made only in the form of declaration that the particular candidate was convicted or not. The advertisements also contained a specific provision relating to the said declaration at Clause 7 of the advertisement, wherein it contained certain other instructions, including that a candidate should not have been punished by any Court and that the Board would have the power to cancel the candidature in cases of misconduct, concealment of material facts, pendency of a criminal case, conviction, or presentation of facts in a wrongful manner. However, this clause was not part of the procedure nor any modalities were prescribed for the same in making the online application.
4. As the fact of the present case would be, the petitioner, whose date of birth is 06.11.1996, submitted his online application form on 18.02.2016, when he was about 19 years of age. In the declaration forming part of the online application form, he admittedly stated that he had never been convicted by any Court of law.
5. The petitioner also appeared in the Physical Efficiency Test and subsequently was declared successful, as he admittedly scored 406.67 marks in the OBC category, securing 130th rank in the OBC category and 12054th rank overall, and was within the zone of consideration for selection. As per the advertisement and as a follow-up to his name in the zone of consideration, police verification was required to be conducted from his home district. Apparently, the Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit, issued a letter to the petitioner calling him for medical examination, verification of character and documents. The petitioner appeared for the said purposes. Selected candidates were also required to submit an affidavit in a common proforma for joining. The petitioner submitted such an affidavit in which he made various statements required for recruitment purposes but did not disclose the pendency of a criminal case against him.
6. However, upon the aforesaid police verification of character, it was found that a Case Crime No. 1058 A of 2014 under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was pending against the petitioner at Police Station-Bisalpur, District-Pilibhit and a report in this regard was submitted by the police. It was also reported that a Trial in the said criminal case was initiated and subsequently concluded, wherein the petitioner was acquitted by judgment and order dated 25.08.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bisalpur. The judgment of acquittal records that the offence was not proved and that the prosecution witnesses deposed that no such incident had taken place and no offence had been committed. The petitioner was thus given an honorable clean acquittal.
7. Thereafter, the Superint
