The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has quashed the cancellation of a young man’s selection as a police constable, holding that suppression of a criminal case cannot automatically result in cancellation of candidature without examining the nature of the offence, the candidate’s age, the outcome of the trial and other relevant circumstances.

The court observed that the law on suppression of criminal antecedents “does not admit of a mechanical, one-size-fits-all approach” and held that “mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service.”

The order was passed by Justice Abhdesh Kumar Chaudhary on a writ petition filed by Raju Gangwar.

The petitioner had challenged the January 2, 2019, order of the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur, cancelling his candidature for the post of Constable on the ground that he had criminal antecedents and had concealed them by making a false declaration.

The petitioner had applied pursuant to the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board’s advertisement dated December 29, 2015, for direct recruitment to the posts of Male Police Constable and Constable PAC.

Read also: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Challenge to Section 67 Encroachment Proceedings

The court noted that the online application form required candidates to declare only whether they had ever been “convicted” by any court of law.

There was no specific column requiring disclosure of a pending criminal case. Gangwar, born on November 6, 1996, submitted his application on February 18, 2016, when he was about 19 years old.

He later cleared the Physical Efficiency Test, securing 406.67 marks in the OBC category and falling within the zone of consideration for selection.

During police verification, however, it came to light that Case Crime No. 1058A of 2014 under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was pending against him at Bisalpur Police Station, Pilibhit.

The criminal trial subsequently ended in his acquittal on August 25, 2018.

The trial court recorded that the offence had not been proved and that the prosecution witnesses themselves had stated that no such incident had taken place and no offence had been committed.

Read also: Allahabad High Court Directs Deletion of Names of Advocates Failing to Qualify AIBE Under Rule 9

The High Court noted that the acquittal was therefore “an honorable and merit-based acquittal” and was not an acquittal on the benefit of doubt.

After the acquittal, the Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit, sought directions regarding issuance of the appointment letter.

Fresh character verification was thereafter conducted by the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit, and the petitioner was found suitable and permitted to undergo training at Sitapur.

Despite this, the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur, cancelled his candidature on January 2, 2019, citing his criminal antecedents and alleged concealment.

The High Court found that the online declaration made by the petitioner was true as on February 18, 2016, since he had neither been convicted nor had his trial concluded at that stage.

Read also: Strong Suspicion Sufficient to Frame Bribery Charge Against Tax Officer: Allahabad High Court

It further observed that in the absence of a specific query regarding a pending criminal case, non-disclosure at the application stage could not, by itself, be treated as a false declaration or deliberate suppression.

The court also found that the offence arose from a scuffle or quarrel of the kind not uncommon among young persons in rural society and did not involve moral turpitude, dishonesty or any element reflecting adversely on the petitioner’s character.

Significantly, the court noted that the petitioner was about 17 years old and a minor when the FIR was registered in 2014.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Commissioner of Police vs. Sandeep Kumar, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 644, it held that such an indiscretion at a young age could not be visited with the civil consequence of denial of livelihood, particularly when it had not resulted in conviction.

The court also found that the earlier character verification, conducted after the acquittal, had found the petitioner suitable, but the impugned order neither considered that verification nor disclosed any independent material justifying a departure from it.

Read also: Right to Regularization Survives Employee’s Death, Rules Allahabad High Court

The court held that the cancellation order merely recited the criminal case and the relevant circulars without considering the nature of the offence, the petitioner’s age, the result of the trial or the subsequent character verification.

It described the order as “a non-speaking and mechanical order” which failed to satisfy the requirement of due application of mind and was therefore arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Allowing the writ petition, the court quashed the January 2, 2019, order and directed the respondents to treat the petitioner as validly selected pursuant to the 2015 recruitment advertisement and permit him to undergo training and/or issue the consequential appointment order within eight weeks.

The court clarified, however, that the order was confined to the peculiar facts of the case and would not apply where the offence is grave, involves moral turpitude or the candidate stands convicted.

Case: Raju Gangwar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And Ors.

Case No: WRIT A – No. – 4845 of 2019

Date of Order: 15.09.2026

Status: Allowed