Mandatory Disqualification for Non‑Disclosure of Pending Criminal Proceedings in Police Recruitment

1. Introduction

Manisha v. State of Haryana and Others (2025 PHHC 040488) is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner, Manisha, applied for the post of Constable (Scheduled Caste category) pursuant to Advertisement No. 4/2020. She cleared the written examination, physical tests, document scrutiny, medical examination and police verification. During antecedent verification, it emerged that an FIR under Sections 323, 34 and 506 IPC (FIR No. 600/2018) had led to charges framed against her in October 2019. Although this Court quashed the FIR on 05.04.2024 on compromise, the State recorded that at the time of her January 2021 application, the trial was pending and charges stood framed, making her ineligible under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to Haryana). Manisha’s candidature was cancelled and she challenged that order in this petition.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Hon’ble Justice Jagmohan Bansal dismissed Manisha’s petition. The Court held:

• Under PPR Rule 12.16(4), any candidate against whom charges have been framed in a pending FIR is ineligible even to apply.
• Under PPR Rule 12.18(2), non‑disclosure of a pending FIR in the verification‑cum‑attestation form leads to outright disqualification.
• Manisha had knowingly suppressed material facts of her pending trial when filing the verification form.
• Though the FIR was later quashed after compromise and the offence did not involve moral turpitude, sympathy cannot override clear statutory mandates.
• Accordingly, the petition was devoid of merit and dismissed.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

• Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024 5 SCC 264): Emphasized factors for relief—nature and timing of offence, judgment of acquittal, contents of verification forms, socio‑economic background, etc.
• Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016 8 SCC 471) and Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India (2023 7 SCC 536): Laid down broad principles for judicial relief in service and recruitment matters involving criminal antecedents.

In Manisha, the Court recognized these overarching guidelines but underscored that they cannot dilute or override an express statutory disqualification.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The judgment turned on two clear PPR provisions:

• Rule 12.16(4) – “If an F.I.R. is lodged/is pending against a candidate, he shall not be treated eligible for application, if charges are framed against him.”
• Rule 12.18(2) – “The candidate shall disclose the fact regarding registration of FIR … Non‑disclosure … shall lead to disqualification outrightly, solely on this ground.”

Manisha applied in January 2021, by which time charges were already framed (October 2019). She not only applied despite ineligibility, but also suppressed this fact during antecedent verification. The Court held that compliance with these rules is mandatory and cannot be circumvented, even where the offence is settled by compromise or later quashed.

3.3 Impact on Future Cases

• Recruits must scrupulously disclose any pending criminal proceedings where charges are framed.
• Recruiting authorities and tribunals will treat PPR‑style provisions as absolute, precluding ad hoc relief based on compromise or subsequent acquittal when the application itself was barred.
• Jurisprudence on balancing antecedents and compassion must yield to clear statutory disqualifications in service rules.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• FIR Quashing: A court sets aside the FIR, erasing criminal proceedings, often on compromise between parties.
• Moral Turpitude: Conduct contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals. Offences like theft, murder or fraud usually involve moral turpitude.
• Verification‑cum‑Attestation Form: A document filled post‑selection, where a candidate declares antecedents, criminal history and authenticates personal data for final appointment.
• Compromise: An agreement between parties to settle a dispute, which may lead to quashing of an FIR under Section 482 CrPC.

5. Conclusion

Manisha v. State of Haryana reaffirms that statutory provisions governing police recruitment are mandatory and absolute. A candidate against whom charges are framed is ineligible even to apply, and any suppression of that fact during verification attracts automatic disqualification. While higher courts have discretion to consider antecedents and socio‑economic factors, they cannot override a clear disqualifier in recruitment rules. This decision strengthens the integrity of background checks in public service and underscores the importance of full disclosure by applicants.