The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled that candidates applying for positions within the Punjab Police must disclose if an FIR is pending against them. Failure to do so will lead to their candidature being rejected.
In this case, the post for constable was advertised in 2020, while an FIR had been lodged against the petitioner in 2018. The High Court later quashed the FIR in 2024 based on a compromise between the involved parties.
Read also: Supreme Court Orders Probe Into Alleged Irregularities In Punjab Municipal Elections
Justice Jagmohan Bansal, referring to the Punjab Police Rules, stated:
"It is mandatory to disclose the factum of a pending FIR if charges have been framed against the candidate. If the FIR is not disclosed in the verification-cum-attestation form, the candidature is outrightly liable to be canceled. Clause (c) of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 12.18 further provides that if the factum of a criminal case is disclosed in the verification-cum-attestation form, a candidate shall be considered for appointment where criminal proceedings are withdrawn or canceled, or the candidate is acquitted."
The Court emphasized that the advertisement for the constable position in 2020 clearly stated that selection would be made per Punjab Police Rules. It further mentioned:
"If an FIR is pending and charges are framed, a candidate shall not be eligible to apply."
Case Details
The petitioner applied for the constable post under the Scheduled Caste category. She cleared the written test and was selected for the physical test and document verification.
During the police verification process in 2021, the jurisdictional police officer found that charges had been framed against her under Sections 323, 34, and 506 of the IPC in 2019. Despite the FIR being quashed in 2024, her candidature was canceled as she was ineligible at the time of application due to the pending charges.
Read also: Key Legal Challenges Faced by Punjab Government Under Advocate General Gurminder Singh
The Court noted:
"The petitioner was facing trial at the time of application. Charges had already been framed. As per Punjab Police Rules, she was ineligible to apply, yet she proceeded with her application."
Justice Bansal emphasized that the candidate was obligated to disclose her pending trial in the verification-cum-attestation form:
"There was no column in the application form, but a specific column existed in the verification-cum-attestation form. The petitioner was well aware of the pending trial, yet she chose to suppress this fact while submitting the form. This act amounts to suppression of material facts."
The Court acknowledged that while the FIR had been quashed based on a compromise, and the petitioner was not originally named in it, charges had still been framed against her.
"These factors vindicate the petitioner's claim. However, this Court cannot ignore statutory provisions under Rule 12.16 & Rule 12.18 of Punjab Police Rules and the terms of the advertisement. Though the petitioner was not involved in an offense of moral turpitude, she chose to conceal the pending criminal proceedings in the verification-cum-attestation form. Rule 12.18 explicitly states that non-disclosure of a pending FIR leads to outright disqualification."
Additionally, the Court clarified:
"Rule 12.16 mandates that a candidate shall not be eligible to apply if an FIR is pending and charges have been framed. This means even filing an application is not permitted for a candidate against whom charges are framed by the Trial Court."
The Court further opined:
"If this Court directs the respondent to issue her appointment letter, it would amount to a violation of Rule 12.16(4) and Rule 12.18(2) of the Punjab Police Rules. A candidate who was ineligible even to apply cannot be selected."
The Court concluded that "compassion and sympathy" cannot override legal provisions. It stated:
"Had the petitioner disclosed the pendency of criminal proceedings in the verification-cum-attestation form, the situation might have been different."
Since the petitioner was ineligible to apply and also suppressed material information, the Court ruled:
"The candidate does not deserve the post of Constable."
Mr. Jagjot Singh Lalli, Advocate and Mr. Manish Verma, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Dimple Jain, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
Title: Manisha v. State of Haryana & Ors