Complete Disclosure In Govt Employment Is Basic Requirement Rooted In Fairness, Integrity And Public Trust: SC On Non-Disclosure Of Criminal Case During Recruitment

The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court affirming the order allowing the petition against the cancellation of the respondent’s appointment as Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held, “Proper and complete disclosure in applications for government employment is not a simple procedural formality, but a basic requirement rooted in fairness, integrity, and public trust. Government posts attract hundreds, and often thousands, of applicants for a single vacancy, each competing under the same stated conditions, scrupulous vetting of every candidate becomes imperative and essential to ensure a level playing field and to protect the credibility of the selection process.”

“There is a maxim in law to the effect that ‘juda lex sed lex’ which means the law may be harsh, but the law is law. The factum that he said ‘no’ to pending proceedings against him not once but twice, shows demonstrated mal-intent and is in direct contravention of the disclaimer(s) given in the forms. Subsequent acquittal or the fact that he attempted to come clean about the suppression of facts cannot accrue to his benefit”, it added.

AOR Bhakti Vardhan Singh represented the Appellant while AOR Kedar Nath Tripathy represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission issued an advertisement notifying the examination for the recruitment of Samiksha Adhikari/Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari. The respondent was selected, and he was asked to furnish an attestation form as well as a verification form. In both forms, particular questions were put to the applicant about whether there were any criminal cases pending against them. In both instances, the respondent had answered in the negative. There were two cases pending against him registered under Section 147, 323, 504, 506 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 and under Section(s) 354D of IPC and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The appellants had asked the concerned Superintendent of Police for character verification, wherein such a fact was discovered, and this opinion from the District Magistrate was sought as to the suitability of him being appointed. The said Authority held him to be suitable. According to the respondent, unaware of the verification proceedings, on his own volition, he filed an affidavit clarifying the position and declaring the pendency of two cases against him. Consequent to such fact being admitted/discovered, the appellants moved to cancel his appointment, which led to the present proceedings. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition against cancellation. The Division Bench upheld these findings, calling the undisclosed information ‘of trivial nature’.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the acquittal/dropping of proceedings against him were subsequent developments, and at the time of filling up the forms, the investigation in the case was active, so also at the time of the affidavit. It was noticed that the disclaimer made it clear that concealment of information would render the applicant ineligible/unfit for government service. It was further noticed that at the relevant time, the respondent submitted incorrect and false information.

Explaining how the withholding of information about criminal antecedents deprives the appointing authority of the opportunity to make a fully informed assessment of suitability, the Bench stated, “While the law recognizes that non-disclosure, depending on the nature of the offence and surrounding circumstances, may not invariably be fatal to a candidature, it nevertheless remains a serious lapse. The gravity is significantly compounded when the non-disclosure is repeated, as it ceases to be accidental or inadvertent and instead reflects deliberate concealment. Such strikes at the core of trust reposed in candidates for public service, where honesty and transparency are indispensable attributes, and justify a far stricter view by the authorities.”

Reiterating that sympathy cannot supplant law, the Bench held, “...while we acknowledge that loss of a government job is not an easy loss to come to terms with, at the same time awareness of consequences is a necessary component of actions.”

Thus, the Bench allowed the appeal.

Cause Title: State of U.P. v. Dinesh Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 49)

Click here to read/download Judgment