Full and truthful disclosure of prior criminal proceedings, coupled with acquittal, entitles candidates to police appointment under Rule 12.18 of the Punjab Police Rules. The High Court upholds this position, clarifying that denial of candidature solely on the basis of past implication, where acquittal exists and disclosure is made, is impermissible. This reaffirmation is binding on subordinate courts in Haryana and reinforces consistency in police recruitment norms.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/11828/2021 of RAHUL Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER CNR PHHC010558962021 |
| Date of Registration | 02-07-2021 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent within jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms prior single bench judgments in Surender v. State of Haryana & Rakesh Kumar v. State of Haryana |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Police Recruitment / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a candidate acquitted of all charges and making true disclosure in attestation form can be denied police appointment under Rule 12.18(3)(b) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to Haryana)? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 require mandatory disclosure of any pending FIR and charges in the verification-cum-attestation form. If such disclosure is made and, subsequently, the candidate is acquitted, the candidate becomes eligible for consideration under clause (c) of Rule 12.18(3). Denial on grounds of mere implication in a criminal case—where there is acquittal and no concealment—is not permitted unless the acquittal pertains to offences affecting sovereignty or heinous crimes, or if acquittal is solely on technical grounds specified under clause (e). In the present case, the petitioner made full disclosure, was acquitted, and the denial of appointment was therefore unjustified. The judgment solidifies interpretive clarity on police recruitment for candidates with prior criminal proceedings, upholding fair opportunity and procedural propriety. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Interpretation of Rule 12.18(3) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, focused on distinction between acquittal, pending trial, and concealment; prior High Court precedents in similar factual matrices. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner applied for constable post, cleared required tests, disclosed prior FIR and subsequent acquittal in verification form, faced rejection solely on ground of prior implication resulting in acquittal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana; administrative authorities handling police recruitment in Haryana. |
| Persuasive For | Other State Police Recruitment Boards, other High Courts adjudicating on similar rules. |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment expressly reaffirms that full and honest disclosure of prior criminal proceedings, along with final acquittal, protects candidates from being denied police employment under Rule 12.18 of the Punjab Police Rules.
- The rejection of candidature cannot be sustained merely on the ground of prior implication if no concealment exists and acquittal is obtained.
- The scope of “acquittal on technical grounds” and “heinous offences” is specifically defined via reference to Rule 12.18(3)(e), limiting when the State may lawfully deny appointment.
- Administrative authorities are bound by this clarification; lawyers can rely directly on this judgment to contest similar rejections in police recruitment cases.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court applied its prior reasoning in Rakesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, which analyzed Rule 12.18(3) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
- The court explained that the Rule divides cases involving FIRs into multiple categories: conviction, pending trial, acquittal/cancellation of proceedings, cancellation/untraced reports, and technical acquittals for specified heinous or sovereignty-related offences.
- Where a candidate discloses the FIR and is acquitted (not on technical grounds relating to specified offences), he is eligible for appointment under clause (c) of Rule 12.18(3).
- The authorities cannot deny appointment solely on the basis of prior implication in a criminal case if there is subsequent acquittal and no concealment.
- The court noted that the State did not contest the factual circumstances or the applicability of relied-upon judgments.
- The Division Bench’s interim stay in another, unrelated case does not operate as a bar to relief in the present matter as no stay covers the relied-on precedents.
- The petition was allowed with a direction to issue an appointment letter within a prescribed timeline.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The petitioner had disclosed the fact of FIR and acquittal in the attestation-cum-verification form.
- The case is squarely covered by prior High Court judgments (Surender and Rakesh Kumar).
- Rejection of candidature is unwarranted in light of acquittal and absence of concealment.
Respondent (State):
- The respondent found the petitioner ineligible on the ground of prior involvement in a case involving moral turpitude under Rule 12.18(3)(b).
- However, the State was unable to dispute the applicability of the cited Single Bench judgments favoring the petitioner.
- The State referred to a pending appeal (LPA) in another case (Praveen Kumar) where the operation of that order has been stayed by the Division Bench, but no stay exists over the present governing judgments.
Factual Background
The petitioner applied for the post of Constable in Haryana Police pursuant to Advertisement No.8/2015 and cleared the written and physical tests. He was recommended for appointment subject to verification. In the attestation-cum-verification form, he disclosed involvement in FIR No.48 dated 31.01.2018 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 307, 302, 506, and 216 IPC, and further disclosed that he was acquitted by order dated 16.09.2020 of the trial court. Despite clear disclosure and acquittal, his candidature was rejected by order dated 12.03.2021 citing Rule 12.18(3)(b) of the Punjab Police Rules.
Statutory Analysis
- The court analyzed Rule 12.18(3) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to Haryana), which regulates the eligibility of police candidates with prior criminal proceedings.
- Clause (a) deals with convictions for offences involving moral turpitude or with imprisonment for three years or more.
- Clause (b) pertains to cases where trial is pending and charges have been framed for such offences.
- Clause (c) states that candidates become eligible for appointment if criminal proceedings are withdrawn/cancelled or if they are acquitted.
- Clause (e) excludes those acquitted on technical grounds where the court notes key prosecution witnesses are unavailable or have turned hostile, specifically for offences like murder, rape, dacoity, kidnapping for ransom, among others.
- The court’s reading emphasizes that only factual concealment, conviction, pending serious charges, or technical acquittals in specified heinous offences can bar appointment—not mere involvement resulting in acquittal with disclosure.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines are set out in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows, affirms, and applies existing single bench High Court precedents (Surender; Rakesh Kumar).