Non-Disclosure of Pending Case Not Suppression Where Form Asked Only About Conviction: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a police constable candidate’s failure to disclose a pending criminal case cannot automatically be treated as deliberate suppression when the application form only required a declaration about prior conviction. Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary quashed the cancellation of Raju Gangwar’s selection and directed the Uttar Pradesh Police to treat him as validly recruited.

A Question Not Asked

The Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board issued an advertisement on December 29, 2015, for constable posts. The online application form contained a pre‑fixed declaration asking whether the candidate had ever been convicted by a court. There was no separate column for disclosing the pendency of a criminal case. Raju Gangwar, then 19 years old, applied on February 18, 2016, and truthfully answered that he had never been convicted. He cleared the physical test and was placed in the zone of consideration.

During police verification, it emerged that a case under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him in 2014 at Police Station Bisalpur, Pilibhit. The trial ended on August 25, 2018, with an honorable acquittal; prosecution witnesses deposed that no incident had occurred. After fresh character verification, the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit, found Gangwar suitable and allowed him to proceed for training.

Despite this, the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur, cancelled his candidature on January 2, 2019, citing criminal antecedents and concealment through a false declaration. Gangwar challenged the order before the High Court.

Trivial Offence, Minor Age

Senior counsel for Gangwar argued that the online form contained no query about pending cases, so the declaration was factually accurate. The offences were trivial and arose from a rural scuffle. Gangwar was a minor—about 17—when the FIR was lodged. His acquittal was on merits, not on benefit of doubt.

The State countered that Clause 7 of the advertisement empowered the Board to cancel candidature for concealment or pendency of a criminal case. It argued that Gangwar deliberately suppressed the case both in the online form and in the joining affidavit, and that the higher standard of scrutiny for a disciplined force required strict adherence.

Applying the Avtar Singh Framework

Justice Chaudhary examined the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India , which requires the employer to consider factors such as the nature of the post, whether disclosure was specifically sought, the gravity of the offence, the outcome of the criminal case, and the candidate’s age. The court noted that the online form did not ask about pending cases, and Clause 7 was a general condition not incorporated into the application procedure.

The judgment cited Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar (cautioning against rigid denial of employment for petty indiscretions at a young age), Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. (reading down the very Government Order of 1958 relied on by the State to require case‑specific assessment), and Pawan Kumar v. Union of India (holding that suppression does not automatically justify termination and that the employer must consider suitability with due diligence).

The court observed: “In the absence of a specific query, non‑disclosure at the application stage cannot, without more, be equated with a false declaration or deliberate suppression.”

Mechanical Order Struck Down

The High Court found that the impugned cancellation order merely recited the criminal case and the Government Order without discussing the nature of the offence, the petitioner’s age, the acquittal, or the earlier favourable verification by the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police. It held that the order was non‑speaking and mechanical, failing to meet the standard set in Avtar Singh .

The court emphasised that the offences did not involve moral turpitude and that the acquittal was merit‑based. It also noted that Gangwar had already been cleared for training after due verification, and the cancellation authority had no reason to reverse that considered satisfaction.

Decision and Directions

Justice Chaudhary allowed the writ petition, quashed the January 2, 2019 cancellation order, and directed the respondents to treat Gangwar as validly selected. They must permit him to undergo training and issue the consequential appointment order within eight weeks, without reopening the issue of suppression.

The court clarified that this ruling is confined to the peculiar facts and shall not be treated as a precedent where the offence is grave, involves moral turpitude, or the candidate stands convicted.