Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Reconsideration of Constable Appointment Rejection; Finds Wrong Rule Invoked and Acquittal Ignored

Case Name: Amit Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 12 November 2025
Citation: CWP-28988-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature for the post of Male Constable and directed the Director General of Police, Haryana, to reconsider his case afresh. The Court held that the authorities incorrectly applied Rule 12.18(3)(c) of the Punjab Police Rules (as applicable to Haryana), whereas the petitioner’s case fell under Rule 12.18(3)(b). The Court observed that the petitioner disclosed the pending criminal case at every stage, was later acquitted on merits, and the offences involved neither moral turpitude nor imprisonment of three years or more. Accordingly, the rejection was not sustainable in law.

Summary: The petitioner applied for the post of Male Constable pursuant to Advertisement No. 4/2020. During verification, it was found that he was facing trial under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He disclosed this fact in his verification-cum-attestation form. At the time of verification on 13.09.2023, the trial was pending; however, he was later acquitted on 03.05.2025, with the trial court holding the complainant’s version to be hearsay. His request to join service was rejected on 18.08.2025 on the ground that acquittal occurred after verification, and therefore Rule 12.18(3)(c) did not permit appointment.

Before the High Court, the State argued that the rejection strictly followed policy instructions and Rule 12.18(3)(c). The Court noted that none of the charged offences carried punishment exceeding three years, nor were they offences involving moral turpitude. The Court further referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) 5 SCC 264, which requires consideration of factors such as nature of offence, stage of case, and nature of acquittal while assessing suitability for public employment.

Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Director General of Police, Haryana, to reconsider the petitioner’s candidature under the correct legal framework, particularly Rule 12.18(3)(b) of the Punjab Police Rules, the Supreme Court judgment in Ravindra Kumar and the observations made in the order. The authority was directed to complete the exercise within two months. The Court clarified that if found eligible, the petitioner’s joining shall count from his date of appointment for all service benefits.