Disposed

Jai Hind Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2018WRIA/22083/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of candidature cancellation and direction for training. The petitioner was rejected for having a criminal case pending despite claiming no pending cases. The court referred Apex Court guidelines on suppression and truthfully declaring cases, setting aside the immediate dismissal and directing the department to re-examine the matt

What did the court decide?

Applicant directed to approach the competent authority (Respondent No. 4) within three weeks for re-examination of the matter in light of the Apex Court judgment.

Jai Hind Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 26

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22083 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Jai Hind Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:

¶6

"1. issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.08.2018 passed by respondent no. 5 cancelling the candidate of petitioner (Annexure No. 5 to this writ petition).

¶7

2. issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to send the petitioner for training on the post of Constable as he is finally selected candidate on the said post having Roll No. 00343490j in pursuance to the selection carried out by the respondent of Police Constable Recruitment Examination2015 (in short "PRPB-1 (82)/2015)."

¶8

The petitioner though was selected but before he could be issued appointment letter, he was directed to furnish affidavit regarding the fact as to whether any criminal case is pending against him or not. He submitted affidavit on 08.06.2018 stating therein that there is no criminal case registered against him nor, any investigation is pending. The department on its verification found that his name was struck off in a criminal case on 21st July, 20-18, but the fact was that there was criminal case registered in which petitioner was named and, hence, candidature of the petitioner has been rejected under the impugned order dated 29th August, 2018.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judment of Apex Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, 2016 98) SCC 471 and contends that his claim is liable to be considered in the light of judgment of Apex Court wherein, analyzing the law on subject of disclosure of fact regarding pending criminal proceeding, the Apex Court has laid down guidelines, which are reproduced hereunder:

¶10

"38.3.The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

¶11

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:

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service,holding

¶20

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.

¶21

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 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.

¶22

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

¶23

Learned Standing Counsel also submits that in the event petitioner approaches the competent authority, the matter can be examined in the light of judgment of Apex Court.

¶24

In view of above, let the applicant approach respondent no. 4 raising his grievance within period of three weeks from today alongwith certified copy of this order. In the event of such application being moved by the petitioner, 4th respondent shall re-examine the matter in the light of judgment (supra) discussed hereinabove and shall take decision. The order impugned herein shall abide by ultimate decision to be taken by the respondents within period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order alongwith application as directed above.

¶25

With the aforesaid observations and directions the writ petition is disposed of.

¶26

Order Date :- 10.10.2018 Sanjeev

Jai Hind Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Hind Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Shad @ Bhalu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Versha and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shadab and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Archana and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and another

Braham Dev Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and another

Indradev Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of Up and Another