False Disclosure in Government Job Forms Is Serious Misconduct, Not a Mere Lapse: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that proper and complete disclosure in applications for government employment is not a mere procedural formality but a fundamental requirement rooted in fairness, integrity, and public trust.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh allowed an appeal filed by the Uttar Pradesh government and set aside the Allahabad High Court’s single judge and division bench decisions, which had quashed the cancellation of Dinesh Kumar’s selection to the post of Samiksha Adhikari/Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari. The state government had cancelled his selection after finding that he had twice furnished incorrect and false information regarding criminal cases pending against him.

The Supreme Court emphasised that while non-disclosure may not always be fatal to a candidate, depending on the nature of the offence and surrounding circumstances, it nevertheless constitutes a serious lapse. The gravity becomes far greater when the non-disclosure is repeated, as it ceases to be accidental or inadvertent and instead reflects deliberate concealment.

Such conduct, the bench said, strikes at the core of trust reposed in candidates for public service, where honesty and transparency are indispensable attributes, and therefore justifies a much stricter approach by authorities.

Court noted that government posts often attract hundreds or even thousands of applicants for a single vacancy. In such a situation, strict vetting of every candidate becomes imperative to ensure a level playing field and to protect the credibility of the selection process. When an applicant withholds information about criminal antecedents, it deprives the appointing authority of the opportunity to make a fully informed assessment of suitability.

As per the facts of the case, the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on March 5, 2021, for recruitment to the posts of Samiksha Adhikari/Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari. Dinesh Kumar was selected and was subsequently required to submit an attestation form and later a verification form.

Both forms specifically required the applicant to disclose whether any criminal cases were pending against them. In both instances, Kumar answered in the negative.

However, it later emerged that two criminal cases were pending against him. One case, registered in 2019, was under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Another case, registered in 2018, involved Sections 354D of the IPC and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

During character verification, the Superintendent of Police reported these pending cases, following which the opinion of the District Magistrate was sought on Kumar’s suitability for appointment. The District Magistrate opined that he was suitable.

Kumar, on his part, claimed that he was unaware of the verification process and that he had voluntarily filed an affidavit later disclosing the pendency of the two cases against him.

The high court’s single judge allowed his writ petition challenging the cancellation of his appointment, noting that the District Magistrate had found no legal impediment to his appointment, that he had not been charge-sheeted at the relevant time, that mere non-disclosure is not always fatal, that he had been acquitted in one case, and that he had eventually disclosed the cases himself. The division bench upheld this view, describing the undisclosed information as being of a “trivial nature”.

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed. It found that despite a clear stipulation in both the attestation and verification forms, Kumar had furnished information that was contrary to the truth. At the time he filled the forms, criminal cases were pending against him and investigations were ongoing.

Court noted that his acquittal or the dropping of proceedings were subsequent developments and could not alter the position that existed at the time of disclosure. Even at the time of filing the affidavit, the investigations were active.

Observing that the forms clearly warned that concealment of information would render an applicant ineligible or unfit for government service, the bench held that what mattered was the status of the cases at the time the forms were filled. At that point, Kumar had undeniably submitted incorrect and false information.

The respondent argued that he was around 45 years old, that he had filed the affidavit before cancellation proceedings were initiated, and that the District Magistrate had found him fit for appointment. Court, however, held that none of these factors could justify overlooking the deliberate concealment at the relevant time.

Referring to the legal maxim “juda lex sed lex” which means the law may be harsh, but it is the law, the bench observed that answering “no” to questions about pending criminal proceedings not once but twice demonstrated clear mal-intent and was in direct violation of the disclaimers contained in the forms. Subsequent acquittal or later attempts to disclose the facts could not work in his favour.

Court also reiterated that sympathy cannot replace the law. While acknowledging that the loss of a government job is a serious setback, the bench said that awareness of consequences must accompany one’s actions.

Case Title: State of UP & Another Vs Dinesh Kumar

Judgment Date: January 12, 2026

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh