Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has strongly condemned the conduct of Haryana Police authorities for repeatedly denying a constable post to a candidate who had been declared innocent by the investigating agency in a criminal case. The Court, calling it a “classical case of misuse of power and abuse of process of law,” quashed the rejection order, imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the State, and directed the issuance of an appointment letter.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Jagmohan Bansal in the case of Surender v. State of Haryana and others. The core legal issue revolved around whether a candidate can be denied appointment based on the pendency of a criminal case in which the police investigation had already found him innocent, and he had subsequently been discharged by the trial court. The High Court ruled in favour of the petitioner, holding that the authorities had acted mechanically and with a “reprehensible attitude.”
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Surender, had applied for the post of Constable in response to an advertisement dated December 30, 2020. While the selection process was underway, an FIR (No. 170) was registered against him on August 23, 2021, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act.
Despite the FIR, the Staff Selection Commission recommended the petitioner for the post. During the verification of his antecedents in August 2023, the petitioner duly disclosed the pending FIR in his attestation form. However, the authorities rejected his claim.
Crucially, the investigating officer in the FIR had already filed a supplementary challan on December 27, 2022, declaring the petitioner innocent and placing his name in Column No. 2 of the police report. Subsequently, the Trial Court formally discharged the petitioner on February 26, 2024. The State, however, filed a revision petition against this discharge, which is currently pending.
This was the petitioner’s third time approaching the High Court. His first petition (CWP No. 3531 of 2024) led to a direction to the authorities to consider his case. After his claim was rejected, he filed a second petition (CWP No. 5016 of 2025), wherein the Court, on February 21, 2025, directed the respondents to reconsider his claim in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ravindra Kumar vs. State of U.P., (2024) 5 SCC 264. The authorities again rejected his claim via an order dated April 16, 2025, leading to the present petition.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner, represented by Mr. Rajat Mor, argued that he had made a true and correct disclosure of the FIR at every stage as required. He contended that since he was falsely implicated and later found innocent by the police and discharged by the court, he could not be denied the appointment.
The State of Haryana, represented by Mr. Raman Sharma, Addl. A.G., defended the rejection. The State argued that the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ravindra Kumar was not applicable. They relied on instructions dated September 27, 2024, issued by the Director General of Police, which stated that the status of a criminal case must be considered only at the time of the initial verification of antecedents and not thereafter. They further invoked Clause (d) of Rule 12.18(3) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to Haryana), to justify their decision.
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice Jagmohan Bansal, in a detailed analysis, heavily criticized the respondents’ handling of the matter. The Court observed, “This is a classical case of misuse of power and abuse of process of law. The officers dealing with the matter despite repeated orders of this Court have shown reprehensible attitude just to stick to their opinion. It shows that they have scant regard for the orders of Constitutional Courts.”
The Court made the following key findings:
- Improper Reliance on Legal Opinion: The respondent, the Commandant of the 2nd Battalion, HAP, was faulted for not applying his own mind and instead mechanically relying on the opinion of an Assistant District Attorney to distinguish the Ravindra Kumar case. The Court stated, “By relying upon opinion of Assistant District Attorney, the Commandant has grossly violated orders of this Court and attempted to deflect from his duty.”
- Misapplication of Rules and Instructions: The Court noted that the respondents incorrectly applied instructions from September 2024 to a verification process conducted in October 2023. More significantly, the Court found that the respondents had “intentionally and mischievously skipped” the applicable rule. The judgment pointed out that Rule 12.18(3)(c) of the Punjab Police Rules was directly applicable. This rule provides that where a candidate has disclosed a criminal case and the status at the time of verification is ‘acquitted’, ‘cancelled’, or ‘withdrawn’, such a candidate shall be considered for appointment. Since the police had already declared the petitioner innocent in a report filed before the verification, this clause was squarely applicable.
- Incorrect Interpretation of Ravindra Kumar Judgment: The Court held that the respondents had failed to appreciate the ratio of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ravindra Kumar. The Supreme Court had mandated a holistic consideration of various factors, including the nature of the offence, the overall judgment of acquittal, and other antecedents of the candidate. The High Court observed that the respondents, instead of undertaking this exercise, merely tried to distinguish the facts, showing a “narrow and limited appreciation of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court.” The Court quoted the Supreme Court: “Broad-brushing every non-disclosure as a disqualification, will be unjust and the same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the ground realities… It can never be a one size fits all scenario.”
- Innocence Declared by Police is Key: The Court emphasized that the investigating agency itself had found the petitioner innocent and placed him in Column No. 2 of the challan. Therefore, he was not an accused in the eyes of the law on the date of verification, and the subsequent discharge by the trial court only solidified this.
Final Decision
Finding that the petitioner was unnecessarily dragged into multiple rounds of litigation, the High Court allowed the petition. The Court set aside the rejection order dated April 16, 2025.
Concluding that it was a “fit case for imposing costs,” the Court imposed a penalty of ₹50,000 on the respondents, to be paid to the petitioner within two weeks. The respondents were further directed to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner within two weeks and grant him all notional service benefits, including seniority, from the date his batchmates joined the service.
