CWP-20406-2025 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

134 CWP-20406-2025

Date of Decision : July 21, 2025

BHARAT UDHEY SINGH

-PETITIONER

V/S

THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

-RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present: Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Aman Bahri, Addl. Standing Counsel, with

Mr. Sahil Garg, Jr. Panel Counsel

for the respondents- U.T. Chandigarh.

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

1. The instant writ petition encloses challenge to the legality of

the order dated 08.05.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby, the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, has dismissed the petitioner’s

Original Application instituted against the administrative order dated

12.04.2024, wherethrough, his candidature for the post of Constable in

Chandigarh Police was cancelled.

2. The impugned orders have been assailed primarily on the

following two grounds:- (i) Although the petitioner earned acquittal in a

criminal case long before the commencement of the recruitment drive for

the post of Constable, he was nonetheless wrongly declared unfit for

CWP-20406-2025 2

appointment as Constable; (ii) There was no concealment on the part of the

petitioner that could have furnished the Screening Committee with any

reason to deny him appointment as Constable.

3. Before embarking upon the process of evaluating the validity of

the impugned orders and penning down a verdict upon the instant writ

petition, it is deemed apt to initially capture a concise and compendious

backdrop of the case at hand.

FACTUAL MATRIX

4. The competent department of the respondent(s)-U.T .

Chandigarh issued an advertisement/recruitment notice dated 20.05.2023,

thereby inviting online applications for direct recruitment of 700 Temporary

posts of Constable (Executive) in the Chandigarh Police. The petitioner,

having fulfilled the requisite eligibility standards, filled out the online

application form and successfully cleared the written test. Thereafter, he was

called for the physical efficiency test and physical measurement test,

wherein also, he remained successful. Finally, a category wise final waiting

list was prepared by the respondent(s) department, which was published on

the official website of the Chandigarh Police on 18.10.2023. The petitioner

was placed at Sr. No.05 in the Waiting List under “Unreserved Category”.

The document verification and medical examination of all the successful

candidates, including the petitioner, was conducted on 08.12.2023.

Thereafter, he was called to complete the other formalities like document

checking and medical examination at Police Headquarters, Sector 9,

Chandigarh. After completion of the necessary formalities, the Chandigarh

CWP-20406-2025 3

Police issued the list of selected candidates, however, the petitioner’s name

did not find appear therein. Rather, he was served with the order dated

12.04.2024, whereby, his candidature for the post of Constable was

cancelled.

5. The bedrock for drawing of the order dated 12.04. 2024

stemmed from the petitioner’s past criminal antecedents vis-a-vis

involvement in criminal case FIR No.398 dated 13.11.2021, under Section

376(2)(f)(3) IPC and under Section 6 of POCSO Act. The past record of the

petitioner coaxed the Screening Committee to, while considering the

petitioner’s case in its meeting held on 15.02.2024, make recommendation

that he is not fit for appointment as Constable in the discipline force, as the

said post requires persons of good character and suitable for such service.

6. The order dated 12.04.2024 caused pain to the petitioner and

propelled him to challenge the same by filing Original Application

No.60/446/2024 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. However, he

remained unsuccessful, as his Original Application was dismissed vide order

dated 08.05.2025. The Central Administrative Tribunal, while taking into

account the fact that he did not disclose full information in his form

regarding his involvement in a criminal case, though he was ultimately

acquitted, held that this omission does not entitle him to seek appointment

as a matter of right. Moreover, the right of the employer to consider

suitability of a candidate was held to be one of the important factors.

7. Fetching grievance from dismissal of his Original Application,

the petitioner has now approached this Court for redressal of his grievance.

CWP-20406-2025 4

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE

PETITIONER

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in his beseeching the

yearned for relief, made twofold submissions. Firstly, he draws attention of

this Court towards the order of acquittal drawn by the trial Court in the

criminal case registered against the petitioner, and submits that, since the

prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, hence the

petitioner was acquitted by being given the benefit of doubt. The petitioner

was acquitted well before the initiation of the recruitment drive for the post

of Constable, thus his involvement in the criminal case does not, in any way,

have any impact on his character or integrity.

9. He places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme

Court in “Deputy Inspector General of Police & Anr. V. S. Samuthiram”,

2013(1) S.C.T. 115, to submit that, when an accused is acquitted after full

consideration of the prosecution evidence and the prosecution had miserably

failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can be held that

he has earned honourable acquittal. The relied upon paragraph of the

decision (supra) is reproduced hereunder:-

“24. The meaning of the expression “honourable acquittal” came

up for consideration before this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh

Panchal. In that case, this Court has considered the impact of

Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal

court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court

held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to

reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be

honourable. The expressions “honourable acquittal”, “acquitted of

blame”, “fully exonerated” are unknown to the Code of Criminal

CWP-20406-2025 5

Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial

pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by

the expression “honourably acquitted”. When the accused is

acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that

the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled

against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was

honourably acquitted.” (Emphasis supplied)

10. He further submits that, the above aspect again came to

considered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in “Joginder Singh Vs. Union

Territory of Chandigarh and Others”, 2015(1) SCT 87, where the

petitioner/candidate was found to be involved in a criminal case involving

offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, and he was ultimately acquitted

of the charges levelled against him. In Joginder Singh’s case also, Hon’ble

the Supreme Court, after evaluating the judgment passed by the trial Court

in criminal trial, found the acquittal to be honourable acquittal and held the

petitioner/candidate entitled for appointment. The relied upon paragraph of

the above case is reproduced hereunder:-

“20. It is the submission made on behalf of the respondents that the

above referred rules lay down the criteria that clean antecedents

and good moral character is indispensable for a candidate to even

fall within the zone of consideration. However, in the present case,

we have observed that the appellant was involved in a family feud

and the FIR came to be lodged against him on 14.04.1998, after he

had applied for the post of Constable. Further, he had been

acquitted on 04.10.1999, i.e. much before he was called for the

interview/medical examination/written test. Further, as per Rule

12.18, emphasis has been laid on the freedom and otherwise from

conviction. An interpretation of the Rules referred to supra clearly

indicate that an acquittal in a criminal case will qualify him for

appointment to the post of Police Constable, as the appellant had

CWP-20406-2025 6

successfully qualified the other requisites required for his selection.

Thus, as rightly pointed out by the Trial Court that as the

prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellant by

adducing cogent evidence, therefore, the Police authorities cannot

be allowed to sit in judgment over the findings recorded by the

Sessions Court in its judgment, wherein the appellant has been

honourably acquitted. Denying him the appointment to the post of a

Constable is like a vicarious punishment, which is not permissible in

law, therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the

High Court is vitiated in law and liable to be set aside.”

11. He also places heavy reliance upon the verdict rendered in

“Mohammed Imran Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.”, 2018 SCC

Online SC 1943, to submit that, in case, a person acquitted of the charges

under Sections 363, 366, 34 IPC can be found fit for being appointed to the

high post of judicial officer, then the petitioner can also be appointed, that

too, only as a Constable.

12. The second submission made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that, there was no concealment on the part of the petitioner and

he earned acquittal well before launching of the recruitment drive.

13. While referring to the ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble the

Supreme Court in “Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors.”, 2016 SCC

Online SC 726, he submits that, even if some of the information is not

disclosed, the employer can condone such non disclosure if the suppression

is immaterial. In the present case, the petitioner had already disclosed, in his

form, regarding his involvement in a criminal case by making mention of

the FIR Number.

14. In order to lend vigour to his submissions, the learned counsel

CWP-20406-2025 7

for the petitioner also places reliance upon the verdicts rendered in

“Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.”, 2024(2) SCC (L&S) 87,

and, “Municipal Committee, Jaitu Vs. Gulab Singh”, 2003(3) SCT 1011.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE

RESPONDENTS

15. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the

petitioners are vociferously opposed by the learned counsel for the

respondents, who is present in Court on receipt of advance notice. By

drawing the attention of this Court towards the petitioner’s order of

acquittal, he submits that the petitioner did not earn an honorable acquittal,

rather his acquittal was anchored merely upon the prosecutrix turning hostile

while stepping into the witness box. The trial Court has, with a heavy heart,

granted him the benefit of doubt and drew the order of acquittal.

16. Furthermore, he submits that, it was the duty of the candidates,

who participated in the selection process, to furnish the true and correct

information in respect of their character and antecedents. However, the

petitioner had, in his application form, except mentioning the FIR Number,

did not disclose the complete facts. Therefore, he is guilty of concealment.

17. By placing reliance upon the verdict rendered by Hon’ble the

Supreme Court in “The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs.

Bhupendra Yadav”, 2023(3) Law Herald (SC) 2557, he submits that, the

standard for assessing the suitability of a candidate is to be measured by the

employer based on various factors, including the nature of post and nature

of duties. There cannot be any hard and fast rule laid down to bind the

CWP-20406-2025 8

employer for assessing the suitability.

18. He also draws the attention of this Court towards Rules 12.12,

12.14 and 12.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as

the ‘Rules of 1934’), to submit that, duty is cast upon the employer to take

great care in selection of men of a type suitable for police service.

Therefore, while discharging its duty, the impugned order has rightly been

drawn by the employer, which has been rightly upheld by the Central

Administrative Tribunal.

REASONS FOR DISMISSING THE INSTANT WRIT PETITION

19. This Court has considered the detailed submissions made by the

learned counsels for the contesting litigants and also made a studied survey

of the impugned order(s).

20. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that, the employer is

well within its right to consider the suitability of a candidate to be appointed

and no strict yardstick can be laid down to guide the employer for assessing

the suitability. It is, in fact, the nature of duties and nature of post, besides

other factors, which is required to be kept in consideration while assessing

the fitness of a candidate for appointment.

21. In paragraph 30 of the verdict drawn in Avtar Singh’s case

(supra), the three Judge Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court has

summarized various principles to evaluate the suitability of a candidate for

appointment. Paragraph 30 is reproduced hereunder:-

“30. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and

reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion,

we summarize our conclusion thus:

CWP-20406-2025 9

(1) Information given to the employer by a candidate as to

conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case,

whether before or after entering into service must be true and there

should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

(2) While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of

candidature for giving false information, the employer may take

notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such

information.

(3) The employer shall take into consideration the Government

orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of

taking the decision.

(4) In case there is suppression or false information of

involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had

already been recorded before filling of the application/verification

form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of

the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted : -

(a) In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been

recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a

petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an

incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its

discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false

information by condoning the lapse.

(b) Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not

trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or

terminate services of the employee.

(c) If acquittal had already been recorded in a case

involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious

nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean

acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the

employer may consider all relevant facts available as to

antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the

continuance of the employee.

(5) In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of

a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to

consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the

CWP-20406-2025 10

candidate.

(6) In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character

verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial

nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its

discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such

case.

(7) In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to

multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume

significance and an employer may pass appropriate order

cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a

person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not

be proper.

(8) If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at

the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the

appointing authority would take decision after considering the

seriousness of the crime.

(9) In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding

Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of

termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or

submitting false information in verification form.

(10) For determining suppression or false information

attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such

information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to

be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to

knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an

objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However,

in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or

submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked

for.

(11) Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio

falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.”

22. The above principles were subsequently followed by Hon’ble

the Supreme Court in Bhupendra Yadav’s case (supra). It was held that,

CWP-20406-2025 11

the suitability of a candidate is to be measured by the employer based on

various factors and it is for the employer to see the effect of suppression

over suitability etc. A candidate making a false declaration or suppressing

material information or furnishing half-baked information, which may not

be the whole truth, can be visited with adverse consequences. The

relevant paragraphs of the verdict drawn in above case are reproduced

hereunder:-

“8. The standard for assessing the suitability of a candidate is

measured by the employer based on various factors including the

nature of the post, nature of duties, effect of suppression over

suitability, etc. However, no hard and fast rule can be laid down

in this regard [Refer, Pawan Kumar (supra)]. It must be

emphasised that a candidate who proposes to participate in a

selection process, must furnish true and correct information in

respect of his character and antecedents in the

affidavit/verification form required to be filled up during the

selection process or after induction in the service, as the case may

be. A candidate who makes a false declaration or suppresses

material information or furnishes half–baked information which

may not be the whole truth, can be visited with adverse

consequences to the point of his exclusion even though he may

have qualified in the entire selection process, based on the said

falsity/suppression.

10. As can be discerned from the above decision, an employer has

the discretion to terminate or condone an omission in the

disclosure made by a candidate. While doing so, the employer

must act with prudence, keep in mind the nature of the post and

the duties required to be discharged. Higher the post, more

stringent ought to be the standards to be applied. Even if a

truthful disclosure has been made, the employer is well within its

right to examine the fitness of a candidate and in a concluded

criminal case, keep in mind the nature of the offence and verify

CWP-20406-2025 12

whether the acquittal is honourable or benefit has been extended

on technical reasons. If the employer arrives at a conclusion that

the incumbent is of a suspect character or unfit for the post, he

may not be appointed or continued in service.

16. We are, however, unable to concur with the aforesaid view.

Even though the respondent had truthfully declared that he was

involved in a criminal case which was decided by the trial Court

vide judgement 26th October, 2015, on perusing the facts of the

said case as noted hereinabove and the observations made in the

judgement, quite clearly, this was not a case of clean acquittal. It

is evident from the facts narrated that after the chargesheet was

filed, the respondent had arrived at a compromise with the

complainant and filed an application under Section 320 of the

CrPC, based on which the offence under Section 341 IPC was

compounded. As for the remaining offences for which the

respondent was charged i.e. Section 354(D) of the IPC and

Section 11 (D)/12 of the POCSO Act, they were non

compoundable and therefore, the matter was taken to trial. The

respondent was acquitted by the trial Court primarily on account

of the fact that the complainant did not support the case set up by

the prosecution and the other prosecution witnesses had turned

hostile. In such circumstances, the respondent’s plea that he had

been given a clean acquittal in the criminal case, is found to be

devoid of merits.”

23. In the light of the above legal principles, this Court has

examined the issue arising in this writ petition. The present petitioner was

subjected to criminal trial in respect of FIR No.398 dated 13.11.2021,

under Section 376(2)(f)(3) IPC and under Section 6 of POCSO Act.

Although he earned acquittal, perusal of the order of acquittal dated

21.10.2022 reveals that, there were serious allegations against him to the

effect that, he being a tuition teacher used to visit the house of the

CWP-20406-2025 13

prosecutrix (aged about 15 years) and on finding opportunity, he

committed sexual assault upon her. It emerges from perusal of the order

of acquittal that, in their statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164

Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix and her mother supported the prosecution’s case,

however, when they stepped into witness box, they resiled from their

statements, which resulted in acquittal of the petitioner. Although the

learned trial Court acquitted the petitioner by giving him the benefit of

doubt, the hereinafter extracted portion of the order of acquittal vividly

displays that, such acquittal was ordered by the trial Court with a heavy

heart:-

“21. …..It is quite unfortunate that an offence concerning

committing of rape and that upon the prosecutrix is going to

unpunished. But for such a said eventuality the prosecutrix is

responsible through their own acts of commission and omission

resulting in the court declaring her as witnesses unworthy of

trust…..

22. The Court has thus no option to hold the accused not guilty.

The prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the

accused, beyond reasonable doubt, qua the charges levelled

against him. Thus, the benefit of doubt, ought to be extended to

the accused…..”

24. It is also relevant to examine the Rules of 1934, which deal

with the issue in hand. Rule 12.14 imposes obligation upon the employer

to take great care in selection of men of a type suitable for police service

from candidates presenting themselves for enrollment. The relevant Rules

12.14 and 12.18 are reproduced hereunder:-

“Rule 12.14 Recruits-Status of.-

CWP-20406-2025 14

(1) Recruits shall be of good character and great care shall be

taken in selection men of a type suitable for police service from

candidates presenting themselves for enrolment.

X X X

12.18 Recruits verification of character of.

(1) The character and suitability for enrolment of every recruit

shall be ascertained by a reference to the lambardar of the village

or ward member of the town of which the recruit is a resident. A

search slip shall also be sent to the Finger Print Bureau in order

to establish his freedom or otherwise from conviction. Such

lambardar or ward member shall, if the recruit is of good

character, furnish a certificate to that effect which shall be

verified and attested by the sub-inspector in charge of the local

police station. The Sub-Inspector shall be complete the

information required by form 12.18(I)”

25. In the present case, the Screening Committee dul y

considered the petitioner’s case and found that, he did not disclose the full

information in his application form inasmuch as he merely mentioned the

FIR Number, however, when he was called for document verification,

then it came to light that he was tried for a heinous crime. It was well

within the domain of the employer to evaluate the suitability of the

petitioner for appointment as Constable. Since the petitioner deliberately

provided partial information with regard to his criminal antecedents and

concealed material facts, hence the order passed by the competent

authority is well within the four corners of law and requires no

interference. Even the order drawn by the Central Administrative Tribunal

also does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, hence requires no

interference.

CWP-20406-2025 15

26. Insofar as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel

for the petitioner are concerned, this Court has examined the same and is

of the view that, they have been passed based on their own peculiar facts

and circumstances.

27. In Joginder Singh’s case (supra), Hon’ble the Supreme

Court considered the totality of circumstances and only thereupon found

the credentials of the petitioner suitable for appointment. In a similar

fashion, in Mohammed Imran’s case (supra), Hon’ble the Supreme Court

called for a confidential report of the character verification and after

getting satisfied regarding credentials of the petitioner, passed the order in

his favour. The relevant paragraph of Mohammed Imran’s verdict is

reproduced hereunder:-

“10. In the present proceedings, on 23.03.2018, this Court had

called for a confidential report of the character verification as

also the antecedents of the appellant as on this date. The report

received reveals that except for the criminal case under reference

in which he has been acquitted, the appellant has a clean record

and there is no adverse material against him to deny him the

fruits of his academic labour in a competitive selection for the

post of a judicial officer. In our opinion, no reasonable person on

the basis of the materials placed before us can come to the

conclusion that the antecedents and character of the appellant are

such that he is unfit to be appointed as a judicial officer. An

alleged single misadventure or misdemeanour of the present

nature, if it can be considered to be so, cannot be sufficient to

deny appointment to the appellant when he has on all other

aspects and parameters been found to be fit for appointment. The

Law is well settled in this regard in Avtar Singh v. Union of India

and others, 2016 (3) S.C.T. 672. If empanelment creates no right

CWP-20406-2025 16

to appointment, equally there can be no arbitrary denial of

appointment after empanelment.

Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the petitioner’s

counsel do not come to his rescue.

FINAL ORDER

28. In summa, this Court does not find any merit in the instant

writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. The impugned orders

are upheld.

(ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) (KULDEEP TIWARI)

JUDGE JUDGE

July 21, 2025

devinder

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether Reportable : Yes/No