The Kerala High Court quashed an adverse police verification report that declared a job trainee "not suitable for appointment" due to a pending motor vehicle accident case.

The Court observed that under Section 53 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, the statutory mandate of the police is strictly confined to reporting the factual character and antecedents of a candidate, rather than passing judgment on their professional suitability.

Terming the law enforcement agency's declaration as arbitrary, perverse, and an encroachment upon the exclusive prerogative of the employer, the Court emphasized that a routine road accident involvement cannot automatically disqualify an individual from public employment unless the nature of the job specifically involves driving vehicles.

The Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed, "In a report verifying the antecedents of an applicant for employment, it is not open for a police officer, even of the stature of the third respondent, to state whether that person is suitable for appointment or not. The verification report can only contain the details of the criminal antecedents of an applicant. Suitability or otherwise of an applicant to a post, based on the criminal antecedents if any, is the prerogative of the employer. It must always be open to the employer to decide whether the existence of any criminal case would render an applicant unsuitable or not. In other words, the suitability of an applicant to a post cannot be decided by the police."

Advocates Sourabh C Valson appeared for the Petitioner, while Government Pleader Rajeev Jyothish George appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts of the Case

The petitioner was undergoing training with the first respondent enterprise when he was directed to submit an attestation form for the verification of his character and antecedents. The petitioner duly disclosed the details of a pending criminal case, which arose out of a motor vehicle accident wherein a crime was registered against him under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Upon verifying the details, the third respondent (District Police Chief) issued an adverse verification report specifying that the petitioner was "not suitable for appointment." Based on this adverse report, the employer issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, calling upon him to explain why his appointment should not be cancelled. Aggrieved by the police report, the petitioner approached the High Court via a writ petition.

Contentions of the Parties

The Petitioner contended that the police authorities exceeded their jurisdiction by declaring the petitioner "not suitable" for employment. It was argued that the investigation into the accident was complete, a final report was already filed before the Magistrate's Court, and a motor accident claim did not inherently disqualify a person from public employment.

The Respondent defended the verification report, pointing out that it was issued in accordance with the prescribed format under Section 53 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, which contained columns pertaining to suitability.

Observations of the Court

The High Court observed that a verification report issued under Section 53 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, is strictly intended to be a report on the antecedents and character of an employee, and the Legislature never contemplated the police deciding the suitability of a candidate.

The Court held that a police officer has no authority or jurisdiction to declare whether an applicant is suitable for appointment or not. It was observed that determining suitability based on criminal antecedents is the exclusive prerogative of the employer.

The Court noted that the verification report reflected a total non-application of mind, as it inconsistently mentioned in one column that no crime was registered, while referencing the accident case in another.

The Court further noted that it defied comprehension how an individual could be deemed automatically unsuitable for employment due to a motor vehicle accident, unless the employment itself specifically involved the driving of vehicles.

The Court observed, "Thus, when an input is called for from the police by an employer regarding the character and antecedents of a person sought to be appointed or already appointed, the police officer is not expected to express any opinion about the suitability of that person."

Relying on established precedent, the Court ruled that the tabular column concerning "suitability" in the police verification format was legally unsustainable and suggested that the Government delete it.

"The observation of the third respondent in Ext.P7 that petitioner is “not suitable” is without authority, arbitrary and perverse. It fails all comprehension even, as to how an applicant will become unsuitable for a post due to a motor vehicle accident, unless of course, the employment in question, relates to driving of vehicles", the Court said. 

Consequently, the Court quashed the adverse observation and allowed the writ petition.

Cause Title: Midhun M v. Hindustan Latex Limited Lifecare Limited [Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:36571]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocates Sourabh C Valson and Jacob Chacko

Respondents: Government Pleader Rajeev Jyothish George

Click here to read/download the Judgment

Tags: