Allowed

Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC9 Oct 2023WRIA/11415/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an order rejecting a petitioner's candidature for a Constable post in Civil Police. Though the petitioner suppressed a criminal case's pendency in his self-declaration, he was later acquitted. Relying on Supreme Court guidelines on suppression, the Court directed the authority to reconsider his appointment applications.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29.04.2019 quashed; matter remitted to Respondent No.6 for reconsideration of appointment offer.

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194164

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11415 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Babu Lal Ram,Jyoti Bhushan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶6

Petitioner was selected to be appointed as Constable in Civil Police pursuant to the advertisement of 2015 and while he made it to the merit list successfully after passing of the examinations and including physical standard test and medical examination, but since in his self declaration he did not disclose pendency of a criminal case no.207-A of 2014 under Sections 147, 323, 504 & 506 IPC, he was not offered appointment. The incident reported in the criminal case is of the year 2013 when the petitioner was a minor. However, ultimately he has been acquitted in the said criminal case on 31.07.2018, copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It is upon being acquitted in criminal case, which has not been appealed against as has been stated in para 12 of the writ petition, petitioner moved an application and affidavit on 13.06.2018 for reconsideration of his candidature on account of such acquittal in criminal case.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India; 2016 (8)SCC 471 and also a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shivam Maurya vs. State of UP & ors; 2020 5 ADJ 6 and also a recent judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 06.08.2021 passed in Writ-A No.4578 of 2019 in the case of Harendra Yadav vs. State of UP & ors.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel, on the contrary, submits that petitioner having not disclosed the material fact in its affidavit initially filed before the competent authority regarding pending criminal case, it is well within the discretion of the authority to consider the candidature of the petitioner or not and, thus, he has sought to defend the order for the reasons assigned therein.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the judgments produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court, I find that in the case of Avtar Singh ( supra ), the Apex Court vide paragraph 38 has held thus:

¶10

"38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus:

¶11

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 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 recourse 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 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.

¶24

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

¶25

Since now the petitioner has been acquitted in the said criminal case and since it was solitary case registered against him and the fact that he was minor at the time of incident, the Court considers it appropriate that the matter should be reconsidered in light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh ( supra ).

¶26

In view of the above, order impugned dated 29.04.2019 is hereby quashed. Matter is remitted to the competent authority namely the respondent No.6 to reconsider the matter of offering appointment to the petitioner qua his candidature for the post in question taking pragmatic view of the matter and in light of the observations made hereinabove.

¶27

Petition succeeds and is allowed in above terms.

¶28

Order Date :- 9.10.2023 P Kesari

¶29

Digitally signed by :- PRACHI KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 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

Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ram Khelavan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rashid Javed Vs Registrar General Allahabad High Court and 4 Others

Harish Chandra Mishra Vs State of U P and 2 Others

A.S.I. Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kishor Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others