The Allahabad High Court held that a candidate facing serious criminal charges cannot be regarded as suitable for appointment to a disciplined force like civil police, even when pending cases truthfully disclosed in the application form.
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) held that a candidate facing serious criminal charges cannot be treated as suitable for appointment to a disciplined force like the civil police, even when the candidate has truthfully disclosed the pending cases in the application form.
The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of the petitioner’s selection for the post of Constable (Civil Police).
The petitioner, Shekhar, applied for the Constable (Civil Police) post pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board. He participated in the selection process, was selected, and his name was recommended for appointment.
ALSO READ: Compassionate Appointment Is Final, No Second Chance for Higher Post: Supreme Court
During police verification, it was found that Charge Sheet No. 140 of 2021 had been filed against him. This charge sheet related to an FIR registered on January 13, 2021 (Case Crime No. 0018 of 2021) at Police Station Kandhai, District Pratapgarh, under Sections 392, 411, 34, and 201 IPC.
The verification also revealed that the petitioner was facing Case Crime No. 0156 of 2021 under Sections 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
The petitioner had disclosed both pending cases in his application.
Subsequently, on May 21, 2025, the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh, sought the opinion of the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh, regarding the petitioner’s suitability, in light of Government Order No. 4694/1-B-321-1947 dated April 28, 1958. On June 9, 2025, the District Magistrate opined that since serious allegations had been levelled and charge sheets had already been filed, the petitioner should not be appointed.
Accordingly, by an office communication dated July 10, 2025, the Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur (the appointing authority) cancelled the petitioner’s selection and candidature on the ground of unsuitability.
The petitioner then approached the High Court by filing the present writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that denial of appointment cannot be based solely on the pendency of criminal proceedings, particularly where the candidate has not suppressed facts and has truthfully disclosed the cases.
The Standing Counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner was rightly found unsuitable due to the serious nature of the offences. He relied on the Supreme Court’s observations in Avtar Singh to emphasize that candidates for a disciplined force must satisfy stringent standards of character.
The Recruitment Board also clarified that its role ended after declaring the final result and forwarding the select list to the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh for further action. It further stated that the process was governed by the Uttar Pradesh Civil Police Constable & Head Constable Service Rules, 2015 (as amended in 2017), and under Rule 16, the appointing authority is empowered to verify character and may declare a candidate unfit on adverse material.
The Court framed the key question as whether a candidate can be treated as unsuitable for police recruitment on account of serious criminal cases which have not yet ended in trial.
To resolve the issue, the High Court referred to governing rules and judicial principles, including:
The Court examined the binding nature of G.O. No. 4694-II-B-321-1947, governing character verification at first appointment. It noted that Paragraph 2 states that it is the appointing authority’s duty to satisfy itself regarding the suitability of the candidate. Paragraph 3(d) provides for reference of cases to concerned authorities including the District Magistrate and police authorities.
The Court relied on Rule 11, which provides that the character of a candidate must be such as to render him suitable in all respects, and that the appointing authority must satisfy itself on the point of character.
The Court also referred to:
- Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. (2011) 14 SCC 709, emphasizing that the appointing authority must apply its independent mind.
- Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471, particularly Paragraph 38, which permits discretionary appointment only in cases of a “trivial nature.” The Court held the allegations here involved robbery and gangster-related conduct, and thus could not be treated as trivial.
- Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India (2023) 7 SCC 536, stressing that recruitment to the police requires thorough scrutiny since police personnel must inspire public confidence and uphold society’s security.
- Union of India v. Methu Meda (2022) 1 SCC 1, observing that a person seeking to join a disciplined force must have impeccable character and integrity, and that criminal antecedents would render a candidate unfit for such category.
Applying these principles, the High Court observed that the offences in question were serious, the charge sheets had already been filed, and the appointing authority had adhered to the required procedure, including duly considering the District Magistrate’s adverse opinion after giving proper opportunity to respond.
The High Court held there was no illegality in the cancellation of the petitioner’s selection. It concluded that the post relates to a disciplined force, and therefore a candidate facing serious criminal charges cannot be treated as suitable.
ALSO READ: Centre Announced New Judicial Appointments for High Courts
The Court further observed,
“The post in question pertains to a disciplined force and therefore, a candidate facing serious criminal charges cannot be considered suitable for such appointment.”
The court added,
“A person having criminal antecedents relating to serious charges cannot fit in this category. Even if the petitioner is acquitted or discharged after the conclusion of trial, it cannot be presumed at this stage that he would be honourably acquitted.”
The Court also held that the procedure under the Government Order dated April 28, 1958 was followed in letter and spirit. The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.