# Akash Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1292
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-24
- **Case number:** Writ A No 14466 of 2025
- **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/akash-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54392
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

1292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case of misappropriation of a small amount of State Road Transport Corporation's fund by a conductor and
held it a grave act of misconduct, which resulted in financial loss to the Corporation. This Court also held that
punishment of dismissal from service awarded by the disciplinary authority did not call for any interference
by the Labour Court or the High Court and hence the order of reinstatement passed by the High Court was
set aside. This Court also in a catena of decisions held that the Tribunal should not sit in appeal over
the decision of any employer unless there exists a statutory provision in this behalf. This Court also
observed that the High Court gets jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment in the exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution only when it finds that the punishment imposed is
shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved."

14. In the first round of proceedings, a representation of petitioner was considered by the higher
authority and a fresh inquiry report was sought. Accordingly, a fresh inquiry report was submitted and charge
was found proved in part, however, Disciplinary Authority has made a disagreement on a factual aspect that
petitioner has sufficient time to distribute tickets as bus was checked after about 12 kilometers from starting
point, he filled pay-bills without issuing tickets.

15. The petitioner is not able to deny aforesaid either in disciplinary proceedings or before this
Court. The petitioner is also not able to deny that in normal circumstances, tickets are issued at first instance
and pay-bills are filled subsequently and not vice versa. During inquiry, due process was followed. The
petitioner was granted sufficient time to submit reply of notice of disagreement, however, he failed to do so.

16. The Appellate Authority has also rejected the appeal by a reasoned order. It is well settled that in
cases of disciplinary proceedings, this Court cannot sit as Appellate Court to consider whether evidence was
sufficient or not except in a case when findings are perverse which is not a case in hand. Carrying passengers
without ticket is a serious misconduct and in this regard, Court takes note of above referred judgments and
since petitioner has failed to provide any reasonable explanation that under which circumstances, without
issue tickets to passengers, he could fill pay-bills in advance, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to
interfere with impugned order in limited writ jurisdiction and for that Court takes note of a judgment of
Supreme Court in Bhupinderpal Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 113.

17. Accordingly, writ petition has no force, hence, dismissed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1292
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Writ A No 14466 of 2025

Akash Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
4 All. Akash Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1293
Issue for Consideration
(1) Validity of the order of cancellation of selection passed on the grounds of pendency of three criminal
cases, out of which one was quashed by the High Court and other two cases entail the offences, which do not
involve moral turpitude.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Cancellation of selection - Post of Constable (Civil Police) - Three criminal
cases were registered, which were truthfully disclosed by the petitioner - Out of these cases,
one FIR stood quashed by the High Court and two remaining cases entail offences, which does
not involve moral turpitude and are punishable with a maximum sentence of up to seven years -
While quashing FIR, High Court observed that both parties had withdrawn all cases instituted
against each other and the dispute between the parties was essentially of a commercial nature -
Effect - Applicability of principle laid down in Avtar Singh's case felt into consideration: (E-1)
Held: In respect of the two cases, applying the tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various
judgments, the nature of allegations does not prima facie indicate offences involving moral turpitude affecting
society at large. The allegations against the petitioner are yet to be adjudicated and are subject to
determination during trial - Youthful indiscretions and minor offences ought not to result in branding a person
as a criminal for life and that the approach of the State should be reformative rather than punitive, and
applying the said principles to the present case, the pendency of two criminal cases, wherein the role
assigned to the petitioner is general in nature, does not constitute a valid ground to deny appointment to the
petitioner, particularly when he is not a convict and the allegations in the said cases are yet to be adjudicated
during trial. [Para 28 and 30]

Case Law Cited
Avtar Singh vs. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471; State Bank of India and Others vs. P. Soupramaniane,
(2019) 18 SCC 135 - referred to.

List of Acts
U.P. Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2017 - Rule 15(6).

List of Keywords
Selection, Criminal cases, Right to cancel the candidature, Document verification, Medical examination, Charge
sheets, Criminal antecedents, Moral turpitude, Adjudication, Conviction, Youthful indiscretion, Minor offences,
Reformative, Punitive.

Case Arising From
Impugned order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Deoria.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant: Utsav Mishra.
Advs. for the Respondents: Maneesh Pratap Singh(SC).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.)

1.Heard Sri Utsav Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Maneesh Pratap Singh,
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

2.By means of the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated
03.09.2025, whereby his selection/candidature has been cancelled by respondent No. 6,
Superintendent of Police, Deoria.
1294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3.Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.12.2023 issued by
the U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow, applications were invited for the post
of Constable (Civil Police) through direct recruitment. In the said advertisement, under Clause 3.5,
it was provided that a prospective candidate who is found guilty of an offence involving moral
turpitude shall not be eligible for appointment to the post of Constable (Civil Police).

4.Clause 3.5 of the said advertisement is extracted hereinunder:-

 ि टप् प ण
 िंघ िरकार या ि कि राज्य िरकार या ि कि ि् था न य प्र ा ि धकार द्व ा रा या िंघ िरकार
या ि कि राज्य िरकार के स्वा ि मत्वा ध न या ि नयंत्र णाध न ि कि ि नयम या ि नकाय द्व ा रा पदच्यु
त व्य ि क्त िेवा में ि कि पद पर ि नयुि क्त के ि लयेपात्र नह ं हों गे। नैि तक िधमता के ि कि िपराध
के ि लए दोष ि िद्ध व्य ि क्त भ िेवा में ि कि पद पर ि नयुि क्त के ि लयेपात्र नह ं हों गेI"

5.It is submitted that under Clause 8(2) of the advertisement dated 23.12.2023, the U.P.
Police Recruitment and Promotion Board reserved the right to cancel the candidature of a candidate
in case any vital information, such as pendency of a criminal case, polygamy, etc., is found against
a prospective candidate. The petitioner, possessing all requisite qualifications, applied for the post
of Constable (Civil Police) pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. The written examination was
conducted in the month of August, 2024, wherein the petitioner was declared successful and his
name finds place at Serial No. 57107 of the selection list.

6.Thereafter, the petitioner appeared for document verification before the competent
authority and was found successful. Subsequently, vide letter dated 11.04.2025 issued by the
Additional Superintendent of Police/Nodal Officer (Direct Recruitment-2023), District Sultanpur,
the petitioner was directed to appear for medical examination in terms of Rule 15(6) of the U.P.
Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2017.

7.In compliance thereof, the petitioner appeared for medical examination on 23.04.2025,
wherein he was required to fill Police Form No. 92, which mandates disclosure of all criminal
antecedents. The petitioner accordingly submitted an affidavit dated 24.05.2025, disclosing all
three criminal cases pending against him, along with the fact that he has not been convicted in any
of the said cases.

8.The details of the three cases are as under:-

 "1. FIR/Case Crime No. 364 of 2021 under Sections 352, 504 IPC & Section 4/10 of
Forest Conservation Act, Police Station-Gosaiganj, District-Sultanpur.

 2. FIR/Case Crime No. 13 of 2022 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section
3(1)(Da) & 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Gosaiganj, District-Sultanpur.

 3. FIR/Case Crime No. 711 of 2023 under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC,
Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Sultanpur."
4 All. Akash Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1295
9.Vide letter dated 30.05.2025, issued by the Additional Superintendent of Police,
Headquarters of the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow, the petitioner was allotted District
Deoria for appointment to the post of Constable (Civil Police). However, in the meantime, the
impugned order dated 03.09.2025 came to be passed by respondent No. 6, whereby the
candidature/selection of the petitioner has been cancelled on the recommendation of respondent
No. 4, District Magistrate, Sultanpur, as well as on account of non-issuance of a 'No Objection
Certificate' by the Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur, declaring the petitioner ineligible for
appointment.

10.Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been
passed on the ground that out of the three criminal cases registered against the petitioner, in two
cases charge-sheets have been filed, while in one case, i.e. FIR/Case Crime No. 711 of 2023 under
Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, the allegations involve an offence of moral
turpitude. It is submitted that in the said case, a final report has already been submitted, though no
decision has yet been taken by the competent trial Court. However, on the basis of such criminal
antecedents, coupled with the fact that in the other two cases charge-sheets have been filed, and
treating FIR/Case Crime No. 711 of 2023 as involving moral turpitude and pending before the trial
court, the impugned order has been passed read with the Government Order dated 28.04.1958.

11.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that with regard to FIR/Case Crime No.
711 of 2023 under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No. 6276 of 2023 (Smt. Deepa Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others) was filed which, after exchange
of pleadings, was allowed vide judgment and order dated 01.02.2024, whereby the said FIR,
registered at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur, came to be quashed. He submits that
the very basis for passing the impugned order is the aforesaid FIR. The impugned order, as
contained in Annexure No. 1, records that since a final report has been submitted by the police in
the said case and the same is pending consideration before the trial court, and no decision has yet
been taken by the court concerned, the candidature/selection of the petitioner has been cancelled.

12.Submission is that FIR/Case Crime No. 711 of 2023 was quashed vide judgment and
order dated 01.02.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6276 of 2023, whereas the
impugned order has been passed subsequently on 03.09.2025. It is submitted that while passing the
impugned order, the authorities have failed to consider that the said FIR/Case Crime No. 711 of
2023 had already been quashed by a Division Bench of this Court and no appeal has been preferred
by the State against the said judgment. It is, thus, submitted that the very basis on which the
impugned order has been passed no longer survives, inasmuch as FIR/Case Crime No. 711 of 2023
is no longer in existence.

13.It is submitted that the remaining cases, i.e. FIR/Case Crime No. 364 of 2021 under
Sections 352 and 504 IPC and Section 4/10 of the Forest Conservation Act, Police Station
Gosaiganj, District Sultanpur, entails offences punishable with a maximum sentence of up to three
years. So far as FIR/Case Crime No. 13 of 2022 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section
3(1)(Da) & 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Gosaiganj, District Sultanpur is concerned, it is
submitted that only general and sweeping allegations have been levelled against all the accused
1296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
persons, and no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner. The said offences are punishable
with a maximum sentence of up to seven years.

14.In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471.

15.It is submitted that the FIR/Case Crime No. 711 of 2023 is not under moral turpitude. In
this regard, attention of the Court has been invited towards a finding given by the Division Bench
of this Court while quashing the said FIR on paragraph 8 and 9 of the judgment and order dated
01.02.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6276 of 2023.

16.Learned Standing Counsel for the State has opposed the aforesaid contention. He
submits that the FIR/Case Crime No. 711 of 2023 false under the category involving moral
turpitude.

17.Perused the record so also the impugned order including the law on the issue.

18.A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the State particularly paragraph 20 it appears
that the FIR/Case Crime No. 711 of 2023 under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC,
Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Sultanpur, falls under the category of cases involving moral
turpitude in which although the final report was submitted to the trial Court concerned on
25.02.2025, the case remains pending in the trial Court concerned and petitioner has not yet been
acquitted of the said case involving moral turpitude and therefore the impugned order has been
passed. Except this there is no specific pleadings have been made in the counter affidavit filed by
the State.

19.This Court has noticed that petitioner in paragraph 51 of the writ petition has given an
instance of various candidates as many as six names against whom criminal cases are pending have
been given appointment. However, while filing the counter affidavit no reply has been given in
paragraph 27 of the counter affidavit.

20.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra), while considering the issue of
pending criminal cases at the stage of recruitment, laid down guidelines in paragraph 38, which is
as under:-

 "38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as
possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:

 38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or
arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true
and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

 38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for
giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any,
while giving such information.
4 All. Akash Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1297
 38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/
rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

 38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case
where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/
verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following
recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted:

 38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as
shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an
incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of
fact or false information by condoning the lapse.

 38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature,
employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.

 38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or
offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or
benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available
as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.

 38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded
criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to
appoint the candidate.

 38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form
regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the
case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.

 38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases
such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate
order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom
multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.

 38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the
form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after
considering the seriousness of the crime.

 38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding departmental enquiry would
be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of
suppression or submitting false information in verification form.

 38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has
to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned
has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer
1298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness.
However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false
information as to a fact which was not even asked for.

 38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of
the fact must be attributable to him."

21.It is not in dispute between the parties that at the time of Medical Examination,
the petitioner truthfully disclosed all the three criminal cases registered against him, out of
which FIR/Case Crime No. 711 of 2023 stood quashed by a Division Bench of this Court
vide judgment and order dated 01.02.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6276
of 2023. So far as the remaining two cases are concerned, both entail offences punishable
with a maximum sentence of up to seven years.

22.It is evident that the sole ground taken by the respondents while passing the
impugned order is the pendency of FIR/Case Crime No. 711 of 2023 and the final report
submitted therein, stated to be pending adjudication before the trial court and the petitioner
has not been acquitted in the said case. Petitioner placed on record the judgment and order
dated 01.02.2024 passed by the Division Bench quashing the aforesaid FIR, the respondents,
while filing the counter affidavit, have neither specifically denied nor they have bothered to
address on this point.

23.This Court further notices that while quashing FIR/Case Crime No. 711 of 2023,
the Division Bench, in its judgment dated 01.02.2024, has recorded a categorical finding that
both parties had withdrawn all cases and complaints instituted against each other. It has also
been observed, inter alia in paragraph 9 of the said judgment, that the dispute between the
parties was essentially of a commercial nature.

24.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State Bank of India and Others vs. P.
Soupramaniane, (2019) 18 SCC 135, while dismissing the appeal filed by the State and
affirming the judgment of the High Court, has held that even in cases of conviction, it cannot
be said that every instance of assault or simple hurt would necessarily fall within the
category of offences involving moral turpitude.

25.Relevant observations made in paragraph 16 of the judgment are extracted
hereinunder:-

 "16. There can be no manner of doubt about certain offences which can
straightaway be termed as involving moral turpitude e.g. offences under the Prevention of
Corruption of Act, the NDPS Act, etc. The question that arises for our consideration in this
case is whether an offence involving bodily injury can be categorised as a crime involving
moral turpitude. In this case, we are concerned with an assault. It is very difficult to state
that every assault is not an offence involving moral turpitude. A simple assault is different
from an aggravated assault. All cases of assault or simple hurt cannot be categorised as
crimes involving moral turpitude. On the other hand, the use of a dangerous weapon which
4 All. Akash Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1299
can cause the death of the victim may result in an offence involving moral turpitude. In the
instant case, there was no motive for the respondent to cause the death of the victims. The
criminal courts below found that the injuries caused to the victims were simple in nature. On
an overall consideration of the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the crime
committed by the respondent does not involve moral turpitude. As the respondent is not
guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude, he is not liable to be discharged from
service."

26.In the present case, out of the three criminal cases, FIR/Case Crime No. 711 of
2023 has already been set aside by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order
dated 01.02.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6276 of 2023. The State, being
a party to the said proceedings, has neither controverted nor made any comment with regard
to the said judgment while filing the counter affidavit. The said judgment, therefore, appears
to have attained finality, as no contrary stand has been taken by the respondents in the
counter affidavit.

27.So far as the remaining two cases are concerned, the offences alleged therein
entail a maximum sentence of up to seven years. It is well settled that no straightjacket
formula can be applied in such matters, and the trials in both the cases are still pending.

28.In respect of the said two cases, applying the tests laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in various judgments, the nature of allegations does not prima facie indicate
offences involving moral turpitude affecting society at large. The allegations against the
petitioner are yet to be adjudicated and are subject to determination during trial.

29.It is further relevant to note that out of the three cases, FIR/Case Crime No. 711 of
2023 has already been quashed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order
dated 01.02.2024, wherein a categorical finding has been recorded that the dispute between
the parties was essentially commercial in nature and has already been settled between them.

30.Thus, considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avatar Singh
(supra), wherein, while referring to Commissioner of Police vs. Sandeep Kumar, it has been
observed in paragraphs 8 and 9 that youthful indiscretions and minor offences ought not to
result in branding a person as a criminal for life and that the approach of the State should be
reformative rather than punitive, and applying the said principles to the present case, the
pendency of two criminal cases, wherein the role assigned to the petitioner is general in
nature, does not constitute a valid ground to deny appointment to the petitioner, particularly
when he is not a convict and the allegations in the said cases are yet to be adjudicated during
trial.

31.In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the
respondent No. 6, contained in Annexure No. 1, is hereby quashed. The respondent No. 6 is
directed to issue the appointment letter to the petitioner forthwith. Such appointment shall,
however, be subject to the final outcome of the criminal trials in the said two cases.
1300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
32.Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1300
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

Writ C No. 1637 of 2026

Nanhe Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the death of the petitioner's wife, caused by knife wounds inflicted by unknown assailants, falls
within the ambit of "accidental death" covered under the Mukhymantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojna?

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Constitution of India - Article 226:- Writ Petition under Article 226 - against the impugned
rejection order whereby his claim under the Mukhymantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojna was rejected -
petitioner's wife died due to knife wounds inflicted by unknown assailants while cutting grass in the field -
postmortem report indicates that her death was caused due to knife wound - he claimed compensation with a
request that her death should be treated as accidental under the scheme - he relied on earlier scheme also -
rejection - writ petition - State opposed, arguing that the scheme's eligibility clause specifically enumerates
covered accidental events and does not extend to murder - Court held that, the present Mukhymantri Yojna is
distinct from the earlier scheme - and a murder or an incident of like nature as is narrated in the present facts
and circumstances is not an accident as envisaged under the Mukhyamantri Yojna for availing compensation -
held - murder cannot be treated as an accident under the scheme - though the scheme is beneficial but
limited to its defined scope - hence, writ petition fails and is dismissed - however, court clarified that the
petitioner may explore other government schemes for relief.
(Para - 8, 9, 10)
WP Dismissed. (E-11)
CASE LAW CITED
Smt. Bindu Devi v. State of U.P. & Others, WRIT-C No. 35148 of 2017, decided on 15.02.2019 (Division
Bench, Allahabad High Court).
LIST OF ACTS
Constitution of India - Mukhymantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojna.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Accidental death, insurance claim, murder, knife wound, ejusdem generis, beneficial scheme, eligibility clause,
rejection order, writ petition, dismissed.

CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 30.11.2024 rejecting petitioner's claim under the Mukhymantri Kisan Evam Sarvhit Bima Yojna.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Zoheb Ahmed, Shravan Kumar, Tauseef Ali Ansari.