Supreme Court Holds That Repeated Suppression of Pending Criminal Cases in Attestation and Verification Forms Justifies Cancellation of Government Appointment Irrespective of Subsequent Acquittal

Case Name: State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Dinesh Kumar
Citation: 2026 INSC 49
Date of Judgment/Order: 12 January 2026
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Held: The Supreme Court held that deliberate and repeated suppression of pending criminal cases in attestation and verification forms for government employment constitutes a serious lapse undermining integrity and fairness of the recruitment process, and such concealment by itself justifies cancellation of appointment, irrespective of subsequent acquittal, suitability opinions, or later voluntary disclosure.

Summary: The respondent was selected for appointment as Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari pursuant to a recruitment process conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission. In both the attestation and verification forms, he answered in the negative to specific queries regarding pendency of criminal cases, despite two criminal cases being under active investigation at the relevant time, including one under the POCSO Act. The suppression came to light during police verification, though the District Magistrate opined that the respondent was suitable for appointment. The respondent subsequently filed an affidavit disclosing the cases. The High Court set aside the cancellation of his appointment, treating the non-disclosure as trivial. The Supreme Court examined the disclaimers contained in the forms, the nature of the suppression, and the settled law on disclosure of antecedents, and found that the concealment was neither inadvertent nor trivial, but deliberate and repeated, thereby vitiating the recruitment process.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court were set aside, the cancellation of the respondent’s appointment was upheld as lawful and justified, and it was clarified that subsequent acquittal, later disclosure, or sympathetic considerations cannot override the mandatory requirement of truthful disclosure in public employment, with all pending applications disposed of.