IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3818-2025 Date of Decision: 06.03.2025 Anup Kumar and another ......Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. R.S. Dhull, Advocate (appearing through video conferencing)

and Mr. Navnit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are seeking direction to respondent to issue them appointment letter.

2. The petitioners, pursuant to advertisement No.6/2024 dated 28.06.2024, applied for the post of Constable. They participated in the Common Eligibility Test as well as final test. They came to be selected. The respondent conducted verification of their credentials and found that FIR(s) were pending against them at the time of filing application forms. Thus, their candidature came to be rejected.

3. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana, during the course of hearing, produced application forms of both the petitioners. There is specific column in the application forms with respect to FIR. The petitioners did not disclose particulars of FIR pending against them. They specifically mentioned that no FIR is pending against them.

4. The selection process completed in 2024 and petitioners came to be acquitted after completion of selection process. As petitioners did not disclose particulars of pending FIR in the application forms and specifically mentioned that no criminal case is pending against them, they are not entitled to benefit of findings of a three-Judge Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471. The Court after noticing 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 view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:

38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.

38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted:

38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.

38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. 38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.

38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compel