Mere Suppression Of FIR Which Was Later Cancelled Does Not Justify Rejection Of Candidature: Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Reinstatement Of Employee
The High Court has held that non-disclosure of a cancelled FIR cannot mechanically result in termination of service, reiterating that employers must assess antecedents judiciously rather than act arbitrarily.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that mere suppression of information relating to a criminal case does not automatically empower an employer to reject or terminate a candidate without examining the surrounding circumstances.
The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a constable’s appointment on the ground that he had not disclosed a previously registered FIR in the verification form.
A Bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others (2016), in which it was held that “mere suppression of information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily reject the claim of the candidate”, directed that the petitioner be permitted to rejoin the service.
Background
The petitioner had applied for recruitment pursuant to a public advertisement and successfully cleared all stages of selection. During antecedent verification, it surfaced that an FIR had been registered years earlier. The investigating agency had filed a cancellation report, which was accepted by the competent court well before submission of the application and attestation form.
After police verification, a departmental committee examined the record and found the petitioner suitable for appointment. An appointment letter was issued, and the petitioner joined the service. Several months later, the appointment was cancelled because the FIR had not been disclosed in the attestation form, invoking provisions of the Punjab Police Rules relating to concealment of material facts.
The petitioner challenged the termination, contending that the FIR had been cancelled before the recruitment process, no prosecution had followed, and the verification form did not require disclosure of a cancelled case.
Court’s Observations
The Court examined the statutory framework governing recruitment and verification of antecedents. It noted that the relevant rule disqualifies candidates where criminal proceedings are pending or where there is concealment of material facts. However, the attestation form did not contain any column requiring disclosure of an FIR that had already been cancelled by judicial order.
The Bench clarified that prosecution begins with cognisance by a court, and a cancellation report accepted before recruitment cannot be equated with the pendency of a criminal case. Therefore, the petitioner could not be said to have suppressed a material fact within the meaning of the rule.
The Court then analysed Supreme Court rulings in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, which emphasise that suppression of information must be evaluated contextually. Employers are required to consider the nature and seriousness of the allegation, the outcome of the criminal case, the timing of disclosure, the suitability of the candidate, and the fairness of the administrative action.
Mechanical rejection without such evaluation was held to be impermissible.
The Bench further observed that where courts accept cancellation reports, the candidate stands in the category expressly contemplated by the recruitment rules permitting appointment. Since the departmental committee itself had found the petitioner fit and no serious offence or moral turpitude was involved, the subsequent cancellation of the appointment was arbitrary.
The Court emphasised that recruitment rules must be applied in a manner consistent with constitutional principles of fairness and proportionality. Administrative power cannot be exercised in a manner that defeats substantive justice.
Conclusion
The High Court held that the petitioner’s appointment was wrongly cancelled on a misconstruction of the verification rules. Since the FIR had been cancelled before recruitment and no column required its disclosure, there was no suppression warranting termination.
The Court allowed the petition, set aside the cancellation order, and directed the authorities to permit the petitioner to rejoin service within four weeks. It clarified that the intervening period would not count toward service benefits.
Cause Title: Ravinder v. State of Haryana & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:014762)
Appearances
Petitioner: G.S. Gopera, Advocate
Respondents: Akshit Pathania, AAG, Haryana