Court Rules Non-Disclosure of Cancelled FIR Not Grounds for Termination; Orders Reinstatement of Constable Ravinder
In a landmark judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the reinstatement of Constable Ravinder, whose appointment was previously cancelled by the State of Haryana due to the non-disclosure of a cancelled FIR. The court, presided over by Justice Jagmohan Bansal, delivered the verdict on February 2, 2026, setting aside the impugned order dated December 8, 2017, and directing the reinstatement of the petitioner within four weeks.
Ravinder, represented by Advocate G.S. Gopera, had applied for the position of Constable following an advertisement in 2015. Despite successfully passing the written and physical tests and being issued an appointment letter, his candidature was annulled after the authorities discovered an FIR from 2013, which had been cancelled prior to his application. The FIR, registered under Sections 420/120 of the IPC, was cancelled with the trial court's acceptance of the police's cancellation report on September 26, 2014.
The case hinged on whether Ravinder was obligated to disclose the cancelled FIR in his attestation form. Justice Bansal's judgment highlighted that the attestation form did not require the disclosure of cancelled FIRs, noting that the relevant columns pertained to ongoing or concluded legal proceedings, arrests, or convictions, none of which applied to Ravinder given the FIR's cancellation before his application.
The court further referenced Supreme Court judgments, including Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, emphasizing that mere suppression of such information does not justify dismissal without considering the nature of the offense, the timing, and the socio-economic background of the candidate. Ravinder's case met the criteria for leniency, as he was neither prosecuted nor involved in a crime of moral turpitude, and the FIR was cancelled well before his application.
The judgment also clarified the applicability of Rule 12.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, indicating that Ravinder's situation was covered under clauses permitting appointment despite previous FIR registration, provided the cancellation was accepted by the trial court.
Justice Bansal concluded that the decision to terminate Ravinder's appointment was unjustified, directing his reinstatement while noting that the period out of service would not count towards service benefits.
Bottom Line:
Appointment - Non-disclosure of cancelled FIR in attestation form - FIR against petitioner cancelled prior to filing of attestation form - No column in attestation form requiring disclosure of cancelled FIR - Appointment cannot be cancelled for non-disclosure in such circumstances.
Statutory provision(s):
- Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 226/227
- Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Rule 12.18
- Sections 420/120 IPC
Ravinder v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2849471
