Disposed

Sandeep Kumar Harijan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2019WRIA/9776/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court Writ Bench explained Supreme Court principles in Avtar Singh regarding cancellation of candidature due to criminal case involvement. Court did not decide merits but disposed of petition by directing the respondent authority to take a fresh decision within two months.

What did the court decide?

Fresh decision regarding petitioner's candidature to be taken by the fourth respondent within two months.

Sandeep Kumar Harijan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9776 of 2016

¶3

Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Harijan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhananjay Kumar,Ajeet Kumar Singh,R.P.Singh 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.

¶6

This petition seeks quashing of the order dated 12 February 2016 in terms of which the candidature of the petitioner who had appeared in a recruitment exercise for appointment as a Constable in the PAC has been refused upon it coming to light that he was named as an accused in case crime No. 4 of 2015 alleging commission of offences under Sections 323, 325 IPC.

¶7

Pursuant to the last order passed on this writ petition, the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit and in paragraphs 16 and 17 whereof it is asserted that the petitioner had no knowledge or notice of the criminal case at the time when he executed the affidavit before the respondents. It is further stated that the investigating officer had also not put the petitioner to notice for the recordal of his statement and that therefore, the charge of misrepresentation or concealment of material facts could not be borne out.

¶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 appearing for the respondents states that subject to verification of all facts and contentions on merits being left open, the claim of the petitioner for being permitted to complete the training consequent to his selection shall be duly attended to and disposed of in accordance with law and bearing in mind the decision of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh as referred to above. He submitted that the exercise of consideration shall be concluded by the fourth respondent with expedition and preferably within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

¶27

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

¶28

The order dated 12 February 2016 impugned herein shall abide by the fresh decision which the fourth respondent shall now take.

¶29

Order Date :- 27.2.2019 faraz

Sandeep Kumar Harijan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar Harijan v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Vipin Kumar Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Gautam Gond Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vinod Kumar and 5 Others Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Ramji and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Gajendra Singh and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. and 39 Others

Birendra Rawat Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others