Punjab Police Rules | Candidates Failing To Disclose Pending FIRs Will Be Disqualified From Applying For Service: High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has stated that candidates applying for positions under the Punjab Police who fail to disclose that an FIR is pending against them will have their candidature liable to be rejected.

In the present case the post for constable was advertised in 2020 and FIR was lodged in 2018. The same was quashed by the High Court on on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties in 2024.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal perusing the Punjab Police Rules said, "it is mandatory to disclose factum of pending FIR if charges are framed against the candidate. If factum of FIR is not disclosed in the verification-cum-attestation form, candidature is outrightly liable to be cancelled. Clause (c) of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 12.18 further provides that if factum of criminal case is disclosed in the verification-cum-attestation form, a candidate shall be considered for appointment where criminal proceedings are withdrawn or cancelled or candidate is acquitted."

The Court noted that in the present case, the advertisement for appointment of constable in 2020, specifically provided that selection shall be made in accordance with Punjab Police Rules.

"It further provided that if FIR is pending and charges are framed, a candidate shall not be eligible for application," the Court observed.

The plea was filed by a candidate for the post of Constable under Scheduled Caste Category. She qualified the written test and was selected for physical test and scrutiny of documents.

The process of physical test and scrutiny of documents was conducted in 2021.In the police verification, jurisdictional police officer found that charges were framed against her in a FIR lodged 2018 under Sections 323, 34 and 506 of IPC.

The FIR was quashed by the High Court in 2024 on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. The respondent cancelled candidature of the petitioner on the ground that she was ineligible to apply because at the time of filing application, she was facing charges framed by Trial Court.The charges were framed in 2019 and application was filed in 2021.

After analysing the submissions, the Court noted that, "the petitioner was facing trial at the time of filing application. Charges had already been framed. As per PPR, she was ineligible to apply, nevertheless, she applied for the post of Constable."

Justice Bansal highlighted that the candidate was duty bound to disclose factum of pending trial in the verification-cum-attestation form.

"There was no column in the application form, however, there was a specific column in the verification-cum- attestation form. The petitioner was well aware of pending trial still she opted to suppress this fact while filing verification-cum-attestation form. The act of the petitioner amounted to suppression of material facts," the Court added.

The judge observed that, the FIR has been set aside by the High Court on the basis of compromise. She was not named in the FIR, however she was implicated in the Challan and charges were framed by the Trial Court.

"These factors vindicate claim of the petitioner, however, this Court cannot ignore statutory provisions i.e. Rule 12.16 & Rule 12.18 of PPR as well as terms and conditions of the advertisement. The petitioner was not embroiled in an offence involving moral turpitude, however, she opted to conceal factum of pending criminal proceedings in the verification-cum-attestation form. Rule 12.18 clearly provides that non-disclosure of pending FIR in the verification- cum-attestation form shall lead to disqualification of the candidature outrightly," said the Court.

The Court noted that, "Rule 12.16 categorically mandates that a candidate shall not be eligible for application if FIR is pending against him and charges stand framed. It means a candidate is ineligible even to apply against whom charges are framed by Trial Court."

"If this Court directs respondent to issue her appointment letter, it would amount to violence to Rule 12.16(4) as well as Rule 12.18(2) of PPR. A candidate who was ineligible even to apply would be selected," the Court opined.

It added that the "Compassion and sympathy" cannot substitute the law." Had the petitioner disclosed pendency of criminal proceedings in the verification- cum-attestation form, the situation could be little different."

Adding that, the petitioner was ineligible to apply and she further suppressed material information in the verification-cum-attestation form, the Court said the candidate "does not deserve 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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 138

Click here to read/download the order