Dismissed

Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2019WRIA/18317/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a writ petition seeking appointment as a Constable in U.P. Police. The petitioner was rejected due to false disclosure regarding a pending criminal case. Although the petitioner claimed the case was never known to him, evidence showed he surrendered and was on bail. The Court held that making false statements disentitles the petitioner from any relief.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner disentitled from any relief for making false statements.

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18317 of 2007

¶3

Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Sajivan,Ghan Shyam Yadav,Vijay Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,H.M. Srivastava,Neeraj Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Petitioner's claim for appointment to the post of Constable in U.P. Police has been rejected under an order of the Superintendent of Police, Etah, dated 6.3.2007. This order records that petitioner while filing his affidavit on 22.11.2006 has clearly made a false disclosure that no criminal case is pending against him, whereas a Case Crime No.C-50 of 2005 under Sections 325, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Soron, District Etah was registered against him and the petitioner had made a false disclosure.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already been acquitted in the said criminal case.

¶7

In the writ petition, however, a specific assertion is made in para 9 which reads as under:-

¶8

"9. That the order impugned refer to a criminal case registered against the petitioner being case crime no.C50 of 2005 which was never within the knowledge of the petitioner."

¶9

An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.5, who is complainant, stating that petitioner had full knowledge of the aforesaid case and that he surrendered on 18.3.2006 before the Court and was also taken in custody on 19.3.2006. It is also averred that petitioner was granted bail on 20.3.2006 and he was released on 21.3.2006. It is also submitted that having surrendered pursuant to aforesaid criminal case in March, 2006 and having obtained bail from the appropriate court, petitioner's assertion before this Court that he was not aware of the criminal case is a false statement for which appropriate proceedings under section 340 Cr.P.C. are liable to be drawn against the petitioner. It is stated that counter affidavit has been served upon the counsel for the petitioner on 17.7.2007 and although a period of 12 years have expired but no rejoinder affidavit has yet been filed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a

¶11

judgment of the Apex Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 to submit that once the petitioner has been acquitted in criminal case his candidature for appointment ought not to be discarded.

¶12

Ordinarily, this Court would have directed the authorities to consider petitioner's claim for appointment in light of the principles laid down in para 38 of the judgment by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra). This course is, however, not required in the facts of the present case as it is apparent that petitioner not only had made a false disclosure before the authorities but also made a false statement before this Court. Petitioner was aware of the criminal case and the assertion in the counter affidavit that he surrendered and also obtained bail has not been denied even after expiry of 12 years. Having not approached this Court with clean hands, and having made a false statement in writ proceedings, petitioner has disentitled himself for grant of any relief.

¶13

Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.

¶14

Order Date :- 24.7.2019 Ashok Kr.

Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar Singh Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Natthu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Kumar Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Prabhat Sharma and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ravi Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru Secretary and Others

Naresh Kumar Vs Union of India and Others