226-3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision: 02.02.2026 Ravinder ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. G.S. Gopera, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Akshit Pathania, AAG, Haryana.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 08.12.2017 whereby his appointment has been cancelled under Rule 12.18(4) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as made applicable to State of Haryana (in short ‘PPR’).

2. The petitioner pursuant to Advertisement No. 08/2015 applied for the post of Constable. He successfully cleared written test followed by physical measurement and screening test. He on 24.06.2017 as per Rule 12.18 of PPR filed verification-cum-attestation form. The respondent during verification of his credentials found that an FIR No. 91 dated 29.09.2013 under Sections 420/120 IPC at P.S. East Shimla was registered against him. Police filed cancellation report which was duly accepted by trial court vide order dated 26.09.2014. The respondent constituted a committee to consider his suitability. The said committee recommended his name and he was issued an appointment letter dated 13.07.2017. The respondent by impugned order dated 08.12.2017 has cancelled his candidature on account of non-disclosure of aforesaid FIR in attestation form.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that aforesaid FIR was lodged against the petitioner along with other accused. The police after investigation filed cancellation report which was duly accepted by the trial Court on 26.09.2014. The advertisement was issued in 2015. He did not disclose factum of aforesaid FIR in the attestation form because there was no such column. FIR stood cancelled at the time of filing application form. A committee constituted by the department after noting the verification report issued him appointment letter. There was no concealment of facts on his part. The 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.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that petitioner did not disclose factum of FIR in attestation form. Mandate of Rule 12.18 of PPR is unambiguous. It clearly provides that appointment shall outrightly be cancelled if candidate does not disclose factum of FIR in the attestation form. The petitioner did not disclose aforesaid FIR in the attestation form. Thus, there was no question to retain him in service. His appointment was liable to be cancelled on account of concealment of material fact.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. The petitioner was implicated in FIR dated 29.09.2013 under Section 420/120 IPC. Police filed cancellation report which was accepted by trial court vide order dated 26.09.2014. Said order reads as:

“The complainant vide his statement dated 29.09.2013 has stated that he at the relevant time was Principal in Government, Senior Secondary School Portmore. He is satisfied with the cancellation report and has no objection thereto.

Heard. Record perused.

As per the case of the prosecution, the accused on 29.09.2013 at Government, Senior Secondary School Portmore were found copying during the examination with the he