Punjab & Haryana High Court Reinstates Constable Removed for Non-Disclosure of Cancelled FIR; Holds No Concealment Where Attestation Form Did Not Require Disclosure
Case Name: Ravinder v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 02 February 2026
Citation: CWP-5996-2019
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that cancellation of appointment under Rule 12.18(4) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to Haryana) is unsustainable where the candidate was not required to disclose a cancelled FIR in the attestation form. The Court held that once a cancellation report had been accepted by the trial court prior to submission of the application and verification form, and no column required disclosure of such cancelled FIR, there was no concealment of material fact.
Summary: The petitioner applied for the post of Constable pursuant to Advertisement No.08/2015. He successfully cleared all stages of selection and submitted a verification-cum-attestation form on 24.06.2017 under Rule 12.18 of the Punjab Police Rules (Haryana Amendment). During verification, the department found that FIR No.91 dated 29.09.2013 under Sections 420/120 IPC had been registered against him at Police Station East Shimla. The police had filed a cancellation report, which was accepted by the trial court on 26.09.2014.
A departmental committee examined his case and recommended appointment, whereupon he was issued an appointment letter dated 13.07.2017. However, vide order dated 08.12.2017, his appointment was cancelled under Rule 12.18(4) on the ground that he had failed to disclose the said FIR in the attestation form.
The petitioner contended that the FIR stood cancelled and was accepted by the court before he submitted his application and attestation form. He argued that the attestation form did not contain any column requiring disclosure of an FIR already cancelled and that there was no concealment.
The Court examined Rule 12.16 and Rule 12.18 of the Punjab Police Rules. It noted that Rule 12.16(4) renders a candidate ineligible to apply only if charges are framed against him. Under Rule 12.18(2), disclosure is mandatory where an FIR or criminal complaint exists, irrespective of outcome. However, upon perusal of the attestation form (as reproduced in the judgment), the Court found that no specific column required disclosure of a cancelled FIR. The form required disclosure of arrest, prosecution, detention, conviction, pending cases, or debarment, but did not mandate disclosure of an FIR that had been cancelled prior to application.
The Court further held that prosecution commences at least from the stage of cognizance by the court, and in the present case, the cancellation report had been accepted. The petitioner was neither arrested nor made to face trial.
Analysing Rule 12.18(3), the Court observed that clauses (c) and (d) specifically provide that where a cancellation report has been accepted by the trial court, such candidate shall be considered for appointment. The petitioner’s case squarely fell within these clauses.
The Court relied upon the Supreme Court decisions in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan, and Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, holding that suppression of information must be assessed contextually and cannot lead to automatic cancellation. The nature of the offence, timing, contents of the verification form, and socio-economic background must be considered.
In the present case, the petitioner was 21 years old at the time of the alleged incident, the FIR had been cancelled well before his application, and he was not involved in any other offence. The departmental committee had also recommended his appointment.
Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 08.12.2017 cancelling the petitioner’s appointment was set aside. The respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to rejoin service within four weeks. However, the period during which he remained out of service shall not be counted for service benefits.