Allahabad High Court
SURAJ KANNAUJIYAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
A pending criminal case, without a conviction, does not automatically disqualify a candidate for appointment; the appointing authority must independently assess the nature and seriousness of the allegations before rejecting the candidature.
Summary
The petitioner, Suraj Kannaujiya, cleared the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable written exam, medical test and was declared successful, but his appointment was cancelled after a character verification report revealed two pending criminal cases – one under Section 60 of the U.P. Excise Act and another under Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC. The Superintendent of Police, Mau, relying on the District Magistrate’s recommendation, issued an order on 26.08.2025 refusing the appointment, which the petitioner challenged by seeking certiorari and mandamus. The Court examined the statutory framework, particularly Rule 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable Service Rules and Government Order dated 28.04.1958, which require a nuanced assessment of the nature of pending offences rather than an automatic disqualification. Citing Supreme Court precedents such as Avtar Singh and Satpal Singh, the Court held that mere pendency of a criminal case, without consideration of its gravity and the candidate’s conduct, cannot be a ground for denial of appointment. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the petitioner was directed to be given a fresh opportunity for appointment after a proper re‑evaluation.
Issues considered
- The applicability of Rule 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable Service Rules and Government Order 28.04.1958 to the cancellation of a candidate's appointment on the basis of pending criminal cases.
- Whether mere pendency of criminal proceedings, without a conviction, disqualifies a candidate from appointment to the police service.
- Whether the appointing authority exercised its discretion arbitrarily by relying solely on the District Magistrate’s recommendation without independent assessment.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 504
- Police Act, 1861 — s. 46
- U.P. Excise Act — s. 60
Subjects
- character verification
- pending criminal case
- public service appointment
- moral turpitude
- discretionary authority
- certiorari
- mandamus
- U.P. Police Constable Service Rules
- Government Order 28.04.1958
Judgment
Reserved On: 10.08.2026
Delivered On: 30.09.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 8280 of 2026
Suraj Kannaujiya
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Brijesh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
“i Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 26.08.2025 passed by
respondent no.3.
ii Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding
the respondent no.3 to offer appointment to the
petitioner on the post of constable in Civil Police in pursuance of the
selection made by the U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner appeared in the U.P.
Police Constable Civil Police Direct Recruitment, 2023. The result of the
written examination was declared, wherein the petitioner was declared
successful. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for medical examination
by means of letter dated 19.04.2025. The petitioner appeared for the
medical examination on the prescribed date and was declared medically
fit. Consequently, the petitioner was selected for appointment to the post
of Constable, Civil Police and the result was declared on the official
2
WRIA No. - 8280 of 2026
website of respondent No. 2. After the selection of the petitioner, a letter
was sent to Police Station Turkpatti, District Kushinagar, for character
verification of the petitioner. In pursuance thereof, respondent No. 4
submitted a report dated 16.05.2025, mentioning therein that a case
under Section 60 of the Excise Act, being Case Crime No. 12 of 2021
was registered against the petitioner, wherein charge-sheet had been
submitted against the petitioner on 04.06.2021 and an NCR No. 139 of
2018 under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. was also registered against the
petitioner. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, District Kushinagar,
sought further guidance from the District Magistrate, Kushinagar, by
means of letter dated 29.05.2025. The District Magistrate, Kushinagar,
submitted its report dated 05.06.2025, whereby he did not recommend
the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of
Constable. Thereafter, respondent No. 3, Superintendent of Police,
District- Mau by means of the impugned order dated 26.08.2025,
rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of
Constable. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated by the respondents that
after selection of the petitioner, the character verification of the
petitioner was conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar,
wherein it was found that Case Crime No. 12 of 2021, under Section 60
of the U.P. Excise Act, and NCR No. 139 of 2018, under Sections 323
and 504 of the I.P.C, were registered against the petitioner.
Consequently, the District Magistrate, Kushinagar, found the petitioner
unsuitable in the character verification report and the Superintendent of
Police, Mau, by means of order dated 26.08.2025, cancelled the
candidature of the petitioner. It has been further stated that the
Recruitment Board has no role whatsoever in the post-selection process
of character verification. In the present case, the action of cancellation of
the candidature of the petitioner has been taken by the appointing
authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Mau.
4. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has denied the averments
made in the counter affidavit and has stated that as per clause 8(2) of the
3
WRIA No. - 8280 of 2026
advertisement only the Recruitment Board has right to cancel the
candidature of the petitioner but the impugned order dated 26.08.2025
has been passed by the Superintendent of Police, Mau.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at no point of
time, petitioner was supplied with the report submitted by respondent
No. 4 dated 16.05.2025 and mere pendency of criminal case cannot be a
ground for denying appointment without considering the factual aspect
of the matter and recording finding that nature of the offence for which
case is pending against the petitioner, is such that candidature of the
petitioner is not suitable for being appointed. It has been further
submitted that the Government Order dated 28.04.1958 provides for
verification and submitted that Note (a) of the Government Order
provides that even conviction need not of itself involve the refusal of
certificate of a good character, the circumstances of conviction have to
be taken into account, and if they involve any moral turpitude or
association with the crimes of violence, or with movement which has its
object to overthrow by violent means of government as by law now
established in free India, mere conviction should not be regarded as
disqualification.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted in the
supplementary affidavit that petitioner has not been served any notice or
summon in respect of aforesaid case and only after his knowledge
about the pendency of the case in Excise Act, he surrendered himself
before the Court and was released on bail on 16.05.2025. Learned
counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed in cases of
Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others; (2016) 8 SCC 471,
Umesh Chand Vs. State of U.P. and others; 2023 (12) ADJ 702 (DB),
Rakesh Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary,
Department of Cane and Sugarcane and others; Writ A No.18090 of
2020; 2026: AHC-LKO: 20743; Anil Kumar Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and 5 others, Writ A No. 15735 of 2025; 2025:AHC:204592
and Navin Rajhans Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others, Writ A No. 6543 of
2023, Neutral Citation No.-2023:AHC:114199.
4
WRIA No. - 8280 of 2026
7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submitted that respondent
No. 3, has rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that two
criminal cases are pending against the petitioner and, therefore he is not
fit to be appointed in police force, which needs persons of immaculate
character and high dignity. Learned counsel for the respondents further
submitted once the writ petitioner is suffering from an impediment by
way of criminal cases the respondent No. 3, Superintendent of Police,
Mau, on considering the inputs submitted by District Magistrate,
Kushinagar in terms of circular/Government Order dated 28.04.1958,
proceeded to consider the case of the petitioner and has found the
petitioner to be unfit for being appointed as Police Constable. It has also
been submitted that appointment as being sought is of a disciplined force
wherein possession of unblemished character is of paramount
consideration and here in the present case, once it was found that F.I.R.
has been lodged against the petitioner and criminal trial is pending, post
submission of charge sheet, then appointing authority by taking
conscious decision has found the petitioner not to be suitable for being
considered for grant of appointment. It has also been submitted by
learned Standing Counsel that once factum of loss of confidence is there,
then it would not be proper and justified to direct the State respondents
to grant appointment to the petitioner, particularly when it is admitted
case of the petitioner that a criminal trial is pending against him. It has
been further submitted by learned Standing Counsel that impugned order
has been passed in accordance with law and does not call for any
interference by this Court.
8. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut
Prasaran Nigam Limited and Another Vs. Anil Kanwariya, Civil
Appeal Nos. 5743-5744 of 2021 decided on 17.09.2021, Union of
India and Others Vs. Methu Meda, Civil Appeal No. 6238 of 2021
decided on 06.10.2021, State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Chetan Jeff
reported in AIR 2022 (SC) 2274, Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of
India and Ors., Civil Appeal No.- 6955 of 2022 decided on
5
WRIA No. - 8280 of 2026
26.09.2022, Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir
and Others, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 678 of 2021 decided on
28.02.2023 so as to contend that mere disclosure of the criminal case
would not be a ground to accord appointment.
9. Before considering the rival submissions, it would be appropriate
to consider the relevant statutory provisions as well as Government
Orders issued by the Government. The procedure and the manner,
according to which, selection is to be made on the post in question is
governed by the rules, namely, Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Head
Constable Service Rules, 2015 and amended in the year 2017 enacted in
exercise of the power under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 46
read with sub-section (3) of the Police Act, 1861. Rule 16 of the above
noted rules provides as under:-
"16. Character Verification shall be completed under the supervision of
appointing authority before issuing of appointment letter and before sending
the candidates for training. Ordinarily character verification shall be
completed within a month. On adverse fact coming to light during character
verification of any candidate, he shall be declared unfit by the appointing
authority and such vacancies shall be carried forward for next selection.
10. Rule 16 provides for character verification before issuance of
appointment order and also before sending the candidate for training,
and on adverse fact coming in light during character verification of a
candidate, he or she shall be declared unfit by the appointing authority,
and such vacancy shall be carried forward for next selection, but no
criteria or procedure is provided in the said Rule in order to determine as
to whether and under which parameter a candidate is to be declared
unfit.4
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the
Court towards Government Order dated 28.04.1958 providing for
verification of character and antecedents of a government servant before
their fresh appointment. Submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that in view of note appended to para 3 (a) of Government
Order in question, a conviction need not by itself involve the refusal of a
6
WRIA No. - 8280 of 2026
certificate of good character. In a nutshell, the argument is that in the
present case there is no order of conviction, but only criminal case has
been lodged. Respondent No. 3 has not applied its mind as to whether
offence for which petitioner has been charged would be a ground to
negate the claim of the petitioner for training and appointment.
12. Both counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel has
relied upon Government Order dated 28.04.1958 to contend that the
character verification is to be made under the aforesaid Government
Order and the same is occupying the field providing for the modalities of
verification of character of antecedents of government servants before
their fresh appointment. Paragraph No. 3 of Government Order
No.4694-II-B-321-1947 dated 28.04.1958 is being quoted hereinunder:-
"3. (a) Every direct recruit to any service under the Uttar Pradesh
Government will be required to produce: (i) A certificate of conduct and
character from the head of the educational institution where he last studied
(if he went to such an institution). (ii) Certificates of character from two
persons. The appointing authority will lay down requirements as to kind of
persons from whom it desires these certificates. (b) In cases of doubt, the
appointing authority may either ask for further references, or may refer the
case to the District Magistrate concerned. The District Magistrate may then
make further enquiries as he considers necessary.
Note-- (a) A conviction need not of itself involve the refusal of a
certificate of good character. The circumstances of the conviction
should be taken into account and if they involve on moral turpitude or
association with crimes of violence or with a movement which has its
abject to overthrow by violent means of Government as by law now
established in free India the mere conviction need not be regarded as
disqualification.1 (Conviction of a person during his childhood should
not necessarily operate as a bar to his entering Government service.
The entire circumstances in which his conviction was recorded as
well as the circumstances in which he is now placed should be
taken into consideration. If he has completely reformed himself on
attaining the age of understanding and discretion, mere
7
WRIA No. - 8280 of 2026
conviction in childhood should not operate as a bar to his
entering Government service)."
13. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that merely
because charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner in a
criminal case and that too the same is pending before the Court and it
may take several years to decide the same, therefore it would not be
proper to deny the appointment to the petitioner. It has been further
submitted that from the perusal of the First Information Report, it is
apparent that an F.I.R. was lodged under Section 60 of the Excise Act
against the petitioner. The First Information Report against the petitioner
is quoted as under:-
"नकल फर्द फर्द. .... फर्द बरामर्दगी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व एक जरिरकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व र्दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व लिल फर्दटर कच्ची एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व अवैध शराब व शराब व
गिगरफ्तार शुर्दा एक नफर अभि युक्त अन्तर्गत धारा अन्तगत ध शराब वारा 60 Ex. Act थाना तुकपट्टी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व जनपर्द
कुशी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वनगर आज गिर्दनांक 30.05.2021 को मैं हे मैं हे हे0 का0 पर्दम ु नाथ सिंस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वह व का० उमेश उमेश
कुमार र्देख ाल फर्द क्षेत्र में मामूर होकर बगरा चौराहे पर मौजूद था कि मुखवीर खास से में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व मामूर हो मैं हेकर बगरा चौराहे पर मौजूर्द था गिक मुखवी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वर खास लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वे
स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वुचना गिमल फर्दी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व गिक एक व्यगिक्त अन्तर्गत धारा पू० उमेश मा० उमेश गिवद्याल फर्दय बरवा राजा पाकड ( बहुरिरया टो मैं हेल फर्दा) के
पास लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व अवैध शराब व कच्ची एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व शराब की बिक्री कर रहा है। जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है। गिबक्री एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व कर रहा है। जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है। जल्र्दी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व गिकया जाय तो मैं हे पकड ा जा स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वकता है। जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है।
मुखवी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वर की बिक्री कर रहा है। जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है। बात का गिवश्वास लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व करके हम पुलिल फर्दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व वाल फर्दे मुखवी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वर को मैं हे स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वाथ ल फर्देकर चल फर्द गिर्दये। जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है।
पू० उमेश मा० उमेश गिवद्याल फर्दय बरवा राजा पाकड ( बहुरिरया टो मैं हेल फर्दा) के पास लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व पहुँचे तो मैं हे मुखवी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वर खास लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व
ने उस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व व्यगिक्त अन्तर्गत धारा की बिक्री कर रहा है। जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है। ओर इस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वारा करके हट बढ गया। उस व्यक्ति की नजर हम पुलिस वालो गया। जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है। उस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व व्यगिक्त अन्तर्गत धारा की बिक्री कर रहा है। जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है। नजर हम पुलिल फर्दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व वाल फर्दो मैं हे
पर पड़ी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व तो मैं हे वह ागने ल फर्दगा उस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वे हम पुलिल फर्दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व वाल फर्दो मैं हे ने पन्द्रह बी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व कर्दम जाते जाते घेरकर
पकड लिल फर्दया। जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है। पकड े गये व्यगिक्त अन्तर्गत धारा का नाम पता पुछा गया तो मैं हे अपना नाम स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वुरज पुत्र में मामूर होकर बगरा चौराहे पर मौजूद था कि मुखवीर खास से रमेश
कन्नौजिजया ग्रा० उमेश बरवा राजा पाकड ( बहुरिरया टो मैं हेल फर्दा) थाना तुकपट्टी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व जनपर्द कुशी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वनगर
बताया । जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है। पकड े गये व्यगिक्त अन्तर्गत धारा की बिक्री कर रहा है। जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है। जमा तल फर्दाशी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व ल फर्दी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व गई तो पकडे गये व्यक्ति के दाहिने हाथ मे तो मैं हे पकड े गये व्यगिक्त अन्तर्गत धारा के र्दागिहने हाथ मे
एक स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वफेर्द जरिरकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व तरल फर्द पर्दाथ ल फर्दग ग र्दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व लिल फर्दटर बरामर्द हुआ बरामर्द शुर्दा जरिरकेन
को मैं हे खो मैं हेल फर्दकर स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वघ ुं ा गया तो मैं हे कच्ची एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व शराब की बिक्री कर रहा है। जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है। ती एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वक्ष्ण गंध आ रही है। पकडे गये व्यक्ति से गंध शराब व आ रही एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व है। जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है। पकड े गये व्यगिक्त अन्तर्गत धारा स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वे
शराब के स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वम्बन्ध शराब व मे अधिध शराब वकार पत्र में मामूर होकर बगरा चौराहे पर मौजूद था कि मुखवीर खास से तल फर्दब गिकया तो मैं हे गिर्दखाने में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व काजिस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वर रहा । जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है। उक्त अन्तर्गत धारा व्यगिक्त अन्तर्गत धारा
का यह कृत्य अंतगत ध शराब वारा 60 Ex Act बताकर गिहरास लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वत पुलिल फर्दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व मे स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वमय करी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वब
17.42 बजे में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व लिल फर्दया गया। जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है। बरामर्द शुर्दा कच्ची एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व शराब की बिक्री कर रहा है। जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है। जरिरकैन को मैं हे ढ गया। उस व्यक्ति की नजर हम पुलिस वालोक्कन को मैं हे एक
स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वफेर्द कपड े मे स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब ववशी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वल फर्द मो मैं हेहर कर नंमन ू ा मो मैं हेहर तैयार गिकया गया । जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है। गिगरफ्तारी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व के स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वमय
जनता के तमाम ल फर्दो मैं हेग इकट्ठा है जिजनको मैं हे गवाही एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व हेतू कहा गया तो मैं हे ल फर्दाई तो पकडे गये व्यक्ति के दाहिने हाथ मे बुराई तो पकडे गये व्यक्ति के दाहिने हाथ मे की बिक्री कर रहा है। जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है। बात
करते हुए हट बढ गया। उस व्यक्ति की नजर हम पुलिस वालो गये। जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है। गिगरफ्तारी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व के स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वमय मानवाधिध शराब वकार आयो मैं हेग एवं स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब ववQच्च न्यायाल फर्दय के
आर्देश एवं गिनर्दRशो मैं हे का पाल फर्दन गिकया जा रहा है। जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है। फर्द मौके पर लिल फर्दखकर पढ़कर स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वुनाकर
स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वव स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वम्बन्धिन्ध शराब वत के हस्ताक्षर बनवाये जा रहे है । जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है। फर्द की बिक्री कर रहा है। जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है। एक प्रधित अभि युक्त अन्तर्गत धारा को मैं हे र्दी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व गई तो पकडे गये व्यक्ति के दाहिने हाथ मे। जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है।
गिगरफ्तारी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व की बिक्री कर रहा है। जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है। स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वूचना अभि युक्त अन्तर्गत धारा के परिरजन को मैं हे अकब स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वे र्दी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व जायेगी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व। जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है। फर्द मौके पर बो मैं हेल फर्द
बो मैं हेल फर्दकर का0 उमेश कुमार स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वे लिल फर्दखवाई तो पकडे गये व्यक्ति के दाहिने हाथ मे गई तो पकडे गये व्यक्ति के दाहिने हाथ मे । जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है। हस्ताक्षर हे 0 का0 पर्दम ु नाथ सिंस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वह थाना
तुकपट्टी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व जनपर्द कुशी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वनगर, हस्ताक्षर का० उमेश उमेश कुमार, हस्ताक्षर अंग्रेजी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व अभि युक्त अन्तर्गत धारा
स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वूरज नो मैं हेट फर्द की बिक्री कर रहा है। जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है। एक प्रधित अभि युक्त अन्तर्गत धारा को मैं हे र्दी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व गई तो पकडे गये व्यक्ति के दाहिने हाथ मे हस्ताक्षर अंग्रेजी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व अभि युक्त अन्तर्गत धारा स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वूरज। जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है।
नो मैं हेट मैं हे का0 मु0 मुकेश गिWवेर्दी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व प्रमाभिण गंध आ रही है। पकडे गये व्यक्ति सेत करता हूँ गिक मेरे Wारा 'कायमी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व व नकल फर्द फर्द
अक्षरशः बोल बोलकर कम्प्यूटर पर टाइप करवाया गया । बो मैं हेल फर्द बो मैं हेल फर्दकर कम्प्यूटर पर टाइप करवाया गया । जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है।"
14. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that District Magistrate, Kushinagar has refused to give character
certificate to the petitioner merely on the ground that an F.I.R. has been lodged
against the petitioner wherein after investigation a charge sheet has been
8
WRIA No. - 8280 of 2026
submitted and the matter is pending before the court, and has not applied its
mind to the relevant provisions of Government Order dated 28.04.1958
to find out whether the conduct of the petitioner is such as the same is
not suitable for appointment. It has also been submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that under the Government Order dated
28.04.1958, even conviction in a criminal case is itself not a ground for
refusing the appointment.
15. It has also been submitted that a bare look to the Government
Order dated 28.04.1958 would reveal that in cases of doubt, appointing
authority may ask for further references or may refer the case to the
District Magistrate concerned and the District Magistrate may make
further enquiry for the grant of character certificate and Note (a) itself
provides that a conviction need not of itself involve the refusal of the
certificate of good character. The circumstances of conviction should be
taken into account and if they involve any moral turpitude or association
with crimes of violence or with movement which has its object to
overthrow by violent means of Government as by law now established in
free India the mere conviction need not be regarded as disqualification.
16. Thus, it is clear that mere conviction is not a ground for refusal of
appointment. In other words, it has been further contended that it can be
very well said that consideration is to be made at the end of the
appointing authority whether conviction can be a ground for offering or
refusing appointment, looking into the facts and circumstances of
individual matter.
17. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that in the case in hand, the petitioner has yet not been convicted but
merely an F.I.R. has been lodged in which after investigation a charge
sheet has been submitted and the petitioner has also been granted bail on
16.05.2025. Therefore, in view of the Government Order dated
28.04.1958, the same cannot be a ground for refusing appointment to the
petitioner.
9
WRIA No. - 8280 of 2026
18. In case of Avtar Singh (supra), the Supreme Court, after
considering the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
summarized its conclusion in paragraph No. 38 of the judgment, which
is quoted as under:-
“38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile
them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise
our conclusion thus:
38.1. 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.
38.2. 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.
38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government
orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking
the decision.
38.4. 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 recourses appropriate to the
case may be adopted:
38.4.1. 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.
38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in
nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the
employee.
38.4.3. 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.
10
WRIA No. - 8280 of 2026
38.5. 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 candidate.
38.6. 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.
38.7. 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.
38.8. 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.
38.9. 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.
38.10. 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.
38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi,
knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."
19. In case of Commissioner of Police and others Vs. Sandeep
Kumar,(2011) 4 SCC 644, the observations made by the Court in
paragraph Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 are quoted as under:-
“ 8. We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of
his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the
11
WRIA No. - 8280 of 2026
matter. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20
years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such
indiscretions can often been condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They
are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence,
our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young
people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.
9. In this connection, we may refer to the character 'Jean Valjean' in Victor
Hugo's novel 'Les Miserables', in which for committing a minor offence of
stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a
thief for his whole life. The modern approach should be to reform a person
instead of branding him as a criminal all his life.
10. We may also here refer to the case of Welsh students mentioned by Lord
Denning in his book 'Due Process of Law'. It appears that some students of
Wales were very enthusiastic about the Welsh language and they were upset
because the radio programmes were being broadcast in the English language
and not in Welsh. Then came up to London and invaded the High Court. They
were found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to prison for three
months by the High Court Judge. They filed an appeal before the Court of
Appeals. Allowing the appeal, Lord Denning observed :-
"I come now to Mr. Watkin Powell's third point. He says that the sentences
were excessive. I do not think they were excessive, at the time they were given
and in the circumstances then existing. Here was a deliberate interference
with the course of justice in a case which was no concern of theirs. It was
necessary for the judge to show - and to show to all students everywhere -
that this kind of thing cannot be tolerated. Let students demonstrate, if they
please, for the causes in which they believe. Let them make their protests as
they will. But they must do it by lawful means and not by unlawful. If they
strike at the course of justice in this land - and I speak both for England and
Wales - they strike at the roots of society itself, and they bring down that
which protects them. It is only by the maintenance of law and order that they
are privileged to be students and to study and live in peace. So let them
support the law and not strike it down.
But now what is to be done? The law has been vindicated by the sentences
which the judge passed on Wednesday of last week. He has shown that law
and order must be maintained, and will be maintained. But on this appeal,
things are changed. These students here no longer defy the law. They have
appealed to this court and shown respect for it. They have already served a
week in prison. I do not think it necessary to keep them inside it any longer.
These young people are no ordinary criminals. There is no violence,
dishonesty or vice in them. On the contrary, there was much that we should
applaud. They wish to do all they can to preserve the Welsh language. Well
may they be proud of it. It is the language of the bards - of the poets and the
singers - more melodious by far than our rough English tongue. On high
authority, it should be equal in Wales with English. They have done wrong -
very wrong - in going to the extreme they did. But, that having been shown, I
think we can, and should, show mercy on them. We should permit them to go
back to their studies, to their parents and continue the good course which
12
WRIA No. - 8280 of 2026
they have so wrongly disturbed." [ Vide Morris Vs. Crown Office, (1970) 2
Q.B. 114 ]
In our opinion, we should display the same wisdom as displayed by Lord
Denning.
11. As already observed above, youth often commit indiscretions, which are
often condoned.
20. In case of SPO/ Constable IRB Satpal Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and others (Civil Appeal No. 9749 of 2016) decided on
04.08.2026; 2026 INSC 798, in paragraph No. 26, the Supreme Court
has held as under:-
“26. Appellant was discharged from service not because of his conviction on
a criminal charge but merely on the ground of pendency of the criminal case.
He was not given an opportunity of raising his defence. We have not been
shown any law which authorises a public employer to either dismiss or
remove an employee serving the police for more than a decade solely on the
ground of pendency of a criminal case.The act of termination of service, in
the circumstances, cannot be justified.”
21. In case of Mohammed Imran Vs. State of Maharashtra and
Others; AIR 2018 Supreme Court 4895, in paragraph Nos. 4 to 9,
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellant being
an aspirant for judicial service, the standards of behaviour and conduct, to
consider suitability for appointment will have to be different from any other
service. He was involved in an act of moral turpitude in kidnapping of the
girl in question. The acquittal, because the prosecutrix turned hostile, cannot
come to the aid of the appellant. The candidate referred to, for contending
hostile discrimination, was not involved in an act of moral turpitude. Mere
empanelment for appointment creates no rights to seek mandamus for
appointment. The fact that he may have disclosed the alleged involvement in
the attestation form, cannot be considered sufficient to ignore his conduct
involving moral turpitude.
5. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. The only
allegation against the appellant in Sessions Case No.173 of 2000 is that he
along with another was travelling in an autorickshaw that was following the
autorickshaw in which the prime accused Bilal, who was charged under
Section 376, IPC, was travelling with the girl in question. All the accused
13
WRIA No. - 8280 of 2026
were acquitted because the prosecutrix did not support the allegations. The
appellant was 21 years of age on the date of occurrence i.e. 25.05.2000.
6. Employment opportunities is a scarce commodity in our country. Every
advertisement invites a large number of aspirants for limited number of
vacancies. But that may not suffice to invoke sympathy for grant of relief
where the credentials of the candidate may raise serious questions regarding
suitability, irrespective of eligibility. Undoubtedly, judicial service is very
different from other services and the yardstick of suitability that may apply to
other services, may not be the same for a judicial service. But there cannot
be any mechanical or rhetorical incantation of moral turpitude, to deny
appointment in judicial service simplicitor. Much will depend on the facts of
a case. Every individual deserves an opportunity to improve, learn from the
past and move ahead in life by selfimprovement. To make past conduct,
irrespective of all considerations, an albatross around the neck of the
candidate, may not always constitute justice. Much will, however depend on
the fact situation of a case.
7. That the expression “moral turpitude” is not capable of precise definition
was considered in Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another, (1996) 4
SCC 17, opining:
“12. “Moral turpitude” is an expression which is used in legal as also
societal parlance to describe conduct which is inherently base, vile,
depraved or having any connection showing depravity….”
8. The appellant by dint of hard academic labour was successful at the
competitive examination held on 16.08.2009 and after viva voce was selected
and recommended for appointment by the Maharashtra Public Service
Commission on 14.10.2009. In his attestation form, he had duly disclosed his
prosecution and acquittal. Mere disclosure in an appropriate case may not
be sufficient to hold for suitability in employment. Nonetheless the nature of
allegations and the conduct in the facts of a case would certainly be a
relevant factor. While others so recommended came to be appointed, the
selection of the appellant was annulled on 04.06.2010 in view of the
character verification report of the police.
9. It is an undisputed fact that one Shri Sudhir Gulabrao Barde, who had
been acquitted on 24.11.2009 in Case No.3022 of 2007 under Sections 294,
504, 34, IPC, has been appointed. We are not convinced, that in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the appellant could be discriminated and
denied appointment arbitrarily when both the appointments were in judicial
14
WRIA No. - 8280 of 2026
service, by the same selection procedure, of persons who faced criminal
prosecutions and were acquitted. The distinction sought to be drawn by the
respondents, that the former was not involved in a case of moral turpitude
does not leave us convinced. In Joginder Singh (supra), it was observed as
follows:
“25. Further, apart from a small dent in the name of this criminal case in
which he has been honourably acquitted, there is no other material on record
to indicate that the antecedents or the conduct of the Appellant was not up to
the mark to appoint him to the post….”
22. I have perused the order impugned. Respondent No. 3 has merely
accepted the recommendation of District Magistrate, Kushinagar and
Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar and has not independently
recorded any finding on the candidature of the petitioner that whether
mere pendency of criminal case of trivial nature, it would not be proper
to appoint the petitioner as per the Government Order dated 28.04.1958.
The appointing authority has to make an independent consideration after
considering the reports submitted before them. In the present case no
such consideration has been accorded by respondent No. 3. Relevant
paragraph of order impugned is quoted as under:-
"अतः बोल बोलकर कम्प्यूटर पर टाइप करवाया गया । प्रकरण गंध आ रही है। पकडे गये व्यक्ति से में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व पुलिल फर्दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व आरक्षी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व नागरिरक पुलिल फर्दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व के पर्दों पर सीधी भर्ती पर स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वध शराब वी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व त[-2023 के
अन्तगत चयगिनत अभ्यथ[ स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वूरज कन्नौजिजया पुत्र में मामूर होकर बगरा चौराहे पर मौजूद था कि मुखवीर खास से रमेश प्रस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वार्द रजिजस्ट्रेशन नम्बर
12985255 अनुक्रमांक 5381542 गिनवास लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व ग्राम व पो मैं हेस्ट-बरवा राजा पाकड़, थाना
तुकपट्टी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व जनपर्द कुशी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वनगर गिपनको मैं हेड -274407 उ 0 प्र 0 के गिवरूद्ध मु मु0 अ 0 स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व0
ं
12/2021 ध शराब वारा 60 आब० उमेश अधिध शराब व० उमेश थाना तुकपट्टी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व जनपर्द कुशी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वनगर एवं
एन 0 स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व0 आर 0 139 /2018 ध शराब वारा 323/504 ार्दगिव थाना तुकपट्टी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व जनपर्द
कुशी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वनगर पंजी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वकृत हो मैं हेने के फल फर्दस्वरूप जिजल फर्दाधिध शराब वकारी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व कुशी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वनगर के पत्र में मामूर होकर बगरा चौराहे पर मौजूद था कि मुखवीर खास से स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वंख्याः बोल बोलकर कम्प्यूटर पर टाइप करवाया गया ।
3560/न्याय स लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वहा0-2025 गिर्दनांक: 05.06.2025 Wारा र्दी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व गयी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व अभि मत एवं
पुलिल फर्दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व अध शराब वी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वक्षक कुशी एक जरिकेन में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब वनगर Wारा उपल फर्दब्ध शराब व कराये गये अनापलिb में दस लिटर कच्ची अवैध शराब व गिनयुगिक्त अन्तर्गत धारा -पत्र में मामूर होकर बगरा चौराहे पर मौजूद था कि मुखवीर खास से गिनगत गिकये
जाने हेतु अनुपयुक्त अन्तर्गत धारा पाये जाने के फल फर्दस्वरूप इनको मैं हे अनुपयुक्त अन्तर्गत धारा घो मैं हेगिcत करते हुए इनका
चयन/अभ्यथन एतWारा गिनरस्त गिकया जाता है। जल्दी किया जाय तो पकडा जा सकता है।"
23. This Court may also note that the perusal of the F.I.R. indicates
that a case was registered against the petitioner under Section 60 of the
Excise Act and there was no independent witness for the seizure made
by the Police. The other case relied upon by the respondent is an N.C.R.,
15
WRIA No. - 8280 of 2026
which was never investigated by the police and therefore, cannot be of
any use for not issuing character certificate to the petitioner.
24. This Court is conscious of the fact that it is exclusive domain of
appointing authority to assess the suitability of candidate and once the
suitability of the candidate is assessed on the settled principle of law, this
Court should not interfere with the discretion of the appointing authority
unless said discretion has been exercised arbitrarily. In the present case,
the impugned order is that the same has been passed on the basis of
recommendation made by District Magistrate, Kushinagar. Respondent
No. 3 has not given any consideration to the nature of charge levelled
against the petitioner in F.I.R. and the fact that the F.I.R. has been lodged
on 30.05.2021 and more than five years have passed yet trial has not
been concluded and the petitioner has also been granted bail on
16.05.2025 in the aforementioned case. In such view of the fact, this
Court finds that the petitioner cannot be denied appointment on the basis
of criminal case, more so when the order impugned has been passed
without application of the mind.
25. In case of Umesh Chand (supra), this Court in paragraph No. 19
has held as under:-
“19. In view of the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Avtar Singh (supra), the appointing authority is enjoined to take into
consideration the Government Order/instructions/rules applicable to an
employee, at the time of taking a decision as to whether mere pendency of a
criminal case would be a ground to negate the claim of a candidate for being
selected and appointed in public service. The said consideration is absolutely
lacking in the order impugned before the writ court and further the
Government Order dated 21.04.1958 providing for the modalities for
verification of character and antecedents of the Government servants before
their first appointment had also not been looked into, thus in the firm opinion
of the Court, the matter needs to be re-considered by the appointing
authority afresh in the background of the facts available in the case of the
writ petitioner.”
16
WRIA No. - 8280 of 2026
26. Judgments relied upon by the learned Chief Standing Counsel in
the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (supra) is a
case wherein the employee did not disclose about the factum of
pendency of a criminal case which even in fact dis-entitled him to be
accorded appointment though he was subsequently acquitted as the
question of trust intervened and the employer was held to be legally
justified in not continuing the employee in employment. Here in the
present case there is no allegation of non-disclosure or concealment ,
thus the judgment in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam
Limited (supra) is distinguishable. So far as the case of Methu Meda
(supra) is concerned the same is relatable to import and impact of
acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. It was held that for claiming
appointment, in a criminal case the acquittal should be honorable and not
the benefit of doubt. Similarly the case of Chetan Jeff (supra) is also
distinguishable on the facts, particularly when in the said case there was
concealment and material suppression of pendency of criminal case,
which is lacking the present case at hand. With regard to reliance placed
upon by the learned Standing Counsel in the case of Satish Chandra
Yadav (supra) is concerned, the same is also not applicable in the present
case as in the said case the Hon'ble Apex Court held that acquittal in a
criminal case could not automatically make entitled a candidate for
appointment to a post as still it would not be open to the employer to
consider antecedents whether the candidate concerned is suitable and fit
for appointment to the post. The judgment in the case of Imtiyaz Ahmad
Malla (supra) is not also applicable as it was a case wherein the
candidate suppressed the material fact of pendency of the criminal case.
27. This Court is of the considered opinion that the order impugned
cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the
order dated 26.08.2025 passed by respondent No. 3 is set aside.
28. Respondent No. 3 is directed to pass a fresh order after
reconsidering the matter in the light of observations made by this Court
as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgments mentioned herein
17
WRIA No. - 8280 of 2026
above, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the
date of production of certified copy of this order.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
September 30, 2026
Nitika Sri.
Digitally signed by :-
NITIKA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…