Non-Disclosure Of FIR Cancelled Before Application Can't Justify Rescinding Police Recruitment Appointment Letter: P&H High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal has set aside the cancellation of a Haryana Police constable candidate’s appointment, which the State had terminated on the allegation of non-disclosure of an earlier FIR in the verification-cum-attestation form. The Court noted that the FIR stood cancelled by the trial court before the candidate submitted the application and attestation form, and that the form’s columns relate to arrest, detention, prosecution, conviction, or a case pending with the police or a court at the time of filing, without requiring disclosure of an FIR already cancelled. The State has been directed to permit the candidate to rejoin within four weeks, with the intervening period not counted for service benefits.
The petitioner approached the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution seeking setting aside of an order dated 08.12.2017 cancelling his appointment under Rule 12.18(4) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as applicable to the State of Haryana. He had applied for the post of Constable pursuant to Advertisement No. 08/2015, cleared the written and physical tests, and submitted a verification-cum-attestation form on 24.06.2017. During verification, the respondents found that an FIR dated 29.09.2013 under Sections 420/120 IPC had been registered against him. The investigating agency had filed a cancellation report, which was accepted by the trial court on 26.09.2014. A departmental committee recommended his appointment, and he was issued an appointment letter dated 13.07.2017. His candidature was later cancelled on the ground of non-disclosure of the FIR in the attestation form.
The petitioner contended that the FIR had already been cancelled before submission of the form and that there was no column requiring disclosure of a cancelled FIR. The State argued that Rule 12.18 mandated disclosure and that non-disclosure warranted cancellation.
Upon examining Rule 12.16(4), the Court observed that “if an FIR is lodged but charges are not framed, he is eligible to apply.” It further examined Rule 12.18 and noted that “The candidate shall disclose the fact regarding registration of FIR or criminal complaint against him for any offence under any law along-with the current status of such case in application form and verification cum attestation form irrespective of the final outcome of the case.”
After analysing the attestation form, the Court observed, “There is no sub-column mandating the candidates to disclose status of an FIR which has already been cancelled.” The Court stated, “None of the column asked the petitioner to disclose cancelled FIR, thus, there was no occasion for him to disclose cancelled FIR.” It further recorded, “Prosecution commences at the most from the date of taking cognizance by Court.” In that context, the Court stated, “it is difficult to hold that petitioner was guilty of concealment of fact and his appointment could be cancelled under rule 12.18(4) of PPR.”
While referring to Rule 12.18(3), the Court observed that “appointment cannot be denied if cancellation report stands accepted by trial Court.” The Court further stated, “The alleged offence is not a serious offence as per clause (e) of Rule 12.18(3) of PPR.” It recorded that the petitioner’s case was “positively covered by afore-cited judgments of Supreme Court.”
The Court stated, “In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside.” The respondents were directed, “to permit the petitioner to rejoin within a period of four weeks from today.” The Court clarified, “that period during which petitioner remained out of service shall not be counted for service benefits.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. G.S. Gopera, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Akshit Pathania, AAG, Haryana
Case Title: Ravinder v. State of Haryana and Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: PHHC:014762
Case Number: CWP-5996-2019 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Jagmohan Bansal
