Court affirms discretion of appointing authorities to deny employment in disciplined forces to candidates with serious criminal antecedents.
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has upheld the cancellation of Shekhar's selection as a Constable in the Civil Police due to pending criminal charges against him. The judgment, delivered by Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai on May 15, 2026, highlights the discretionary power of appointing authorities in assessing the suitability of candidates facing serious criminal charges for positions in disciplined forces like the police.
The petitioner, Shekhar, had applied for the post of Constable following an advertisement issued by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board. Despite being selected and recommended by the Recruitment Board, his appointment was rejected after police verification revealed pending criminal charges under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including robbery and anti-social activities.
The court emphasized that mere disclosure of pending criminal cases does not obligate the appointing authority to approve the appointment of a candidate. It reinforced the discretion of the appointing authority to reject candidates based on their criminal antecedents, especially when the charges are serious and have not yet been resolved in court.
Justice Rai referred to the established guidelines from previous Supreme Court rulings, including Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, which allow employers to consider a candidate's antecedents even after the truthful disclosure of criminal cases. The court noted that acquittal does not automatically entitle a candidate to appointment in disciplined forces, and each case must be scrutinized thoroughly by the public employer.
The judgment also cited the Uttar Pradesh Civil Police Constable & Head Constable Service Rules, 2015, which mandate character verification before issuing an appointment order. The court underscored the importance of ensuring the candidate's suitability for positions that demand high moral integrity and impeccable character.
In Shekhar's case, the District Magistrate of Pratapgarh, after a detailed review and providing an opportunity for Shekhar to be heard, concluded that the serious nature of the charges rendered him unsuitable for the police force. The Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur, concurred with the District Magistrate's assessment and canceled Shekhar's candidature.
The judgment reaffirms the principle that appointing authorities are not compelled to appoint candidates merely because they have disclosed pending criminal cases. Instead, they hold the responsibility to ensure that recruits to disciplined forces do not have serious criminal antecedents, as such appointments could undermine public confidence and the integrity of the force.
Bottom line:-
Appointment in disciplined force can be denied due to pendency of criminal cases involving serious charges; mere disclosure of such cases does not compel the appointing authority to appoint the candidate.
Statutory provision(s):
- Sections 392/411/34/201 I.P.C.
- Sections 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986
- Uttar Pradesh Civil Police Constable & Head Constable Service Rules, 2015
- Government Order dated 28.04.1958
Shekhar v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2900731
