Partly allowed

Raubin Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2022WRIA/19064/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerns the disqualification of a Constable applicant who failed to disclose two criminal cases in his affidavit prior to appointment. The Court held that the petitioner was unaware of the case details as final reports had been submitted earlier, constituting no serious wrong, and quashed the disqualification order for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 17.09.2021 is quashed; matter remitted to Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi within two months; petitioner to be heard.

Raubin Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 37

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19064 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Raubin Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Narayan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

The petitioner in pursuance of the advertisement issued by U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board (hereinafter referred as "Board") applied on line for being appointed as Constable in the civil police. On 27.01.2019 the result of written examination was declared and the petitioner since had secured 159.8558 marks, which was above cut the off marks, was found eligible for document verification and physical test. After the documents of the petitioner were verified and physical test was done, the petitioner as per the impugned order submitted an affidavit on 19.03.2021. However, after the petitioner was appointed as a Constable and was sent for training to Jhansi, the impugned order was passed on 17.09.2021 which has necessitated the filing of the instant writ petition.

¶7

When the writ petition was filed, learned standing counsel was required to take instructions. The instructions have been filed today and have been kept on record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order by stating that the petitioner was, on the date of filing the affidavit, not aware of the cases, details of which were later provided by the Thana Prabhari, Agra.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that after the case crime no.212 of 2020 was registered a final report was

¶10

submitted on 02.09.2020 and similarly in case crime no.213 of 2020 a final report was submitted on 16.08.2020. He further submits that on the date (i.e. on 19.03.2021) when the affidavit was submitted by the petitioner he had neither any knowledge of the lodging of the F.I.R. nor did he have any knowledge about the fact that final reports had been submitted. Therefore, at the time of his medical examination when the affidavit was submitted on 19.03.2021 he did not mention either about the lodging of the F.I.R. or about the submission of chargesheet.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the final report had been submitted, he would not have shied from giving the details of the criminal cases as there was nothing pending against him on the date when the affidavit was sworn.

¶12

He further submits that as per the judgment of the Honbl'e Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471 as para 38 (8) if the criminal case was pending but was not shown by the petitioner then an adverse conclusion could be drawn by the appointing authority. However, the conclusion could be drawn only after considering the seriousness of the crime.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the case of the petitioner, the petitioner had not known of the criminal cases. What is more, before the swearing of the affidavit on 19.03.2021, final report was submitted on 02.09.2020 and 16.08.2020 in case crime nos. 212 of 2020 and 2013 of 2020 respectively and, therefore, even if the petitioner had not disclosed the lodging of the F.I.R. he had not committed any wrong.

¶14

Learned standing counsel states that when two criminal cases had been lodged against the petitioner then the details of the

¶15

criminal cases ought to have been disclosed in the affidavit.

¶16

Learned standing counsel further submits that if the petitioner is permitted to continue in the police force, it would bring a bad influence on the police force, which is a disciplined force.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel, the Court is of the view that definitely the petitioner, who was of a tender age at the time when he had filed the affidavit, was not aware of the criminal cases. The Court therefore concludes that he had not committed any wrong of any serious magnitude. This aspect of the matter ought to have been looked into by the authority which had passed the impugned order on 17.09.2021. Definitely on the date of swearing of the affidavit i.e. on 19.03.2021 the criminal cases against the petitioner, which were lodged in the year 2020 were no longer being investigated into as final reports against the petitioner had been submitted on 02.09.2020 and 16.08.2020 in both the criminal cases. Definitely, in my opinion, therefore the mistake of not mentioning the criminal cases by the petitioner ought to have been condoned.

¶18

Under such circumstances, the impugned order dated 17.09.2021 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi who shall once again take a decision in view of the judgment of Avtar Singh (Supra) within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him .

¶19

The writ petition is accordingly partly allowed.

¶20

Needless to say that before any order is passed the petitioner shall also be heard.

¶21

Order Date :- 11.4.2022/Asha

¶22

Digitally signed by ASHA Date: 2022.04.21 11:17:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raubin Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raubin Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Chand Saini Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramraj Maurya Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Surendra Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Indreshpal Singh and 16 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Alok Kaushal Vs State of U P and 3 Others