Disposed

Sindhi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2019WRIA/2358/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the rejection of candidature on grounds of concealment, the High Court directed the respondent authority to reconsider the case applying Supreme Court principles from Avtar Singh. The petition was disposed of with a mandate to pass a fresh decision within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the fourth respondent to reconsider the petitioner's claim and pass a fresh decision within one month based on Supreme Court guidelines.

Sindhi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2358 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Sindhi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam,Ambarish Chatterji Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶6

This petition impugns an order dated 25 January 2019 in term of which the fourth respondent has rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground of concealment of material facts.

¶7

The issue itself arises in the backdrop of the petitioner having been initially named in a first information report registered as case crime No. 920 of 2016. The petitioner discloses in the writ petition that in that case a charge sheet was submitted on 16 September 2016 in which the petitioner was not named. The affidavit of the petitioner was affirmed and placed before the respondents on 12 June 2018 in which it was stated that no criminal case had been registered or was pending against him. It is further relevant to note that in the said criminal case the two other persons who were named as accused have since been acquitted by the concerned court. It is in that backdrop that Sri Gautam learned counsel submits that the view taken by the respondents is wholly unsustainable.

¶8

Undisputedly in situations like this, it is the following principles as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, 2016(8) SCC 471 which would apply:-

¶9

"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:

¶10

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

¶11

entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

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:

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

Learned Standing Counsel states that subject to verification of all facts being left open, the claim of the petitioner shall be reconsidered in accordance with law and bearing in mind the decision of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh. It is further stated that the exercise of reconsideration shall be concluded by the fourth respondent within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order alongwith a copy of the writ petition and its enclosures.

¶27

Accordingly this petition shall stand disposed of in light of the statement noted above.

¶28

The order impugned in this writ petition shall abide by the fresh decision which the fourth respondent shall now take.

¶29

Order Date :- 14.2.2019 faraz

Sindhi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sindhi v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Akhilesh Kumar Bharati and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nabi Husain Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Banwari (Sri Banwari Lal) Vs District Magistrate / Collector, Agra and Another

Suresh Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Har Charan Lal and 33 Others Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others