Dismissed

Chandrajeet Kumar Gond v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Another

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2023WRIA/15566/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the cancellation of his candidature for a Class IV judicial post, alleging inadvertent error in denying pending criminal cases. The court found the concealment deliberate due to the missed correction window and qualification in selection rounds, upholding the High Court's decision to dismiss the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; High Court's order dated 03.08.2023 upheld.

Chandrajeet Kumar Gond Vs High Court of Judicature… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:179885

¶2

Court No. - 37

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15566 of 2023 Petitioner :- Chandrajeet Kumar Gond Respondent :- High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Akash Yadav,Amit Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

The instant writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by learned District Judge, Sultanpur, a copy of which is annexure 14 to the petition, whereby the candidature of the petitioner for class IV post in district judiciary has been rejected.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that an advertisement had been issued on 30.10.2022 inviting applications for various class IV posts. The petitioner finding himself eligible for the said posts filled in the online form on 13.11.2022. As per him, against the column of "Whether any criminal complaint case have been registered against you?" the petitioner inadvertently filled in the reply column as "No". The selection was held in two rounds of which the first round was held on 17.12.2022 in which the petitioner qualified. The second round of selection was held on 02.04.2023 in which the petitioner again qualified and he was declared as successful. An order was received by petitioner from the respondents on 20.05.2023, a copy of which is annexure 7 to the petition, requiring the petitioner to complete various formalities including submission of an affidavit as to whether the petitioner has got any criminal case pending against him or whether he has ever been proceeded against in a criminal case in

¶8

which he has been acquitted or found guilty. In pursuance thereof the petitioner claims to have submitted an affidavit on 02.06.2023, a copy of which is annexure 11 to the petition, in which he has disclosed about pendency of a Case Crime No. 0166 of 2020 under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 & 325 IPC registered in Police Station: Mirzamurad District Varanasi.

¶9

Learned District Judge vide the order impugned dated 03.08.2023, considering the guidelines issued by the High Court, more particularly paragraph 6 of the guidelines that where a candidate has not disclosed information of criminal case / proceedings then his candidature is liable to be cancelled, has cancelled the candidature of the petitioner.

¶10

Being aggrieved the instant writ petition has been filed.

¶11

The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had filled in the form for the class IV post on 13.11.2022 and inadvertently against the column of pendency of criminal case he had filled in "No". He further states that he had no opportunity of correcting the said error.

¶12

It is also contended that the petitioner had already qualified in two rounds selections and as soon as the respondent no. 2 required the petitioner through the order dated 20.05.2023 to disclose pendency of any criminal case against him he has disclosed the said fact while submitting his affidavit dated 02.06.2023 and consequently it cannot be said that any concealment of fact has been done by the petitioner so as to entail cancellation of his candidature for class IV post and as such it is prayed that the order impugned be set aside with a further direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment against a class IV post.

¶13

The further argument is that as the disclosure of pendency of

¶14

criminal case has been disclosed prior to his joining as such the said fact should not be held against the petitioner and the order impugned be set aside and the respondent be directed to permit the petitioner to join on the said post.

¶15

It is also contended that the concealment had not been done by the petitioner intentionally rather the same was inadvertent and the petitioner being unemployed, inadvertent error should not be held against him.

¶16

On the other hand, Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents argues that the petitioner filled in the form online on 13.11.2022. Against the column whereby the disclosure regarding pendency of criminal case was required to be indicated the petitioner deliberately filled in "No". As per the advertisement, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition (page 34), there was a period specified for correction in the particulars of the application form which duration was for the period from 15.09.2022 to 16.09.2022. However, the petitioner did not make any effort to correct the erroneous entry that had been made by him. The petitioner appeared in both rounds of selection held on 17.12.2022 and 02.04.2023 and qualified in the same. It was only when the respondents required the petitioner to complete various formalities including submission of an affidavit as to whether any criminal case was pending against him or had ever been filed that the petitioner through his affidavit dated 02.06.2023 indicated the fact about pendency of a criminal case. In terms of paragraph 6 of the guidelines issued by the High Court it has categorically been provided and reproduced in the order impugned dated 03.08.2023 that an undertaking on affidavit shall be taken from selected candidate declaring that neither any criminal case / proceedings is pending against him nor he has been convicted or acquitted by any

¶17

court. In case any criminal case / proceedings is found pending against him in any court which has not been declared by the candidate in the application form, a show cause notice shall be issued to such candidate by the appointing authority as to why his candidature be not cancelled. It is contended that upon the disclosure coming from the petitioner himself through his affidavit dated 02.06.2023 about pendency of a criminal case against him that the respondent no. 2 has cancelled the candidature of the petitioner through the order dated 03.08.2023.

¶18

Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs Union of India and others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 the argument of Shri Ansari is that Hon'ble Supreme Court has summed upon the matter pertaining to nondisclosure of criminal case by the candidates concerned and Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the 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 not be suppression or false mention of required information. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Avtar Singh (supra) the argument of Shri Ansari is that when the petitioner himself deliberately concealed the fact of pendency of criminal case against him then the mere fact that the said disclosure has only been made subsequent to the respondent no. 2 having called upon the petitioner to submit an undertaking cannot be said to be disclosure of complete facts at the first instance by the petitioner himself and as such no error or infirmity has been committed by the respondent no. 2 while cancelling the candidature of the petitioner through the order impugned dated 03.08.2023. It is thus prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶20

From a perusal of record it emerges that an advertisement had been issued by the High Court inviting applications to various class IV posts. The petitioner finding himself eligible applied for the said post. In his application form against the column of "Whether any criminal complaint case have been registered against you?" the reply given by the petitioner is "No". The petitioner appeared in two rounds of selection held on 17.12.2022 and 02.04.2023 and qualified for being appointed on a class IV post. The office of respondent no. 2 vide letter dated 20.05.2023 required the petitioner to fulfill certain formalities prior to his appointment of which one of the formalities was of submission of an affidavit in the shape of undertaking that no criminal case is pending against the petitioner neither in any case the petitioner has been convicted or acquitted. It is only then that the petitioner submitted his affidavit on 02.06.2023 indicating about pendency of a criminal case against him. In the affidavit which has been given by the petitioner dated 02.06.2023, it emerges that the petitioner has indicated that while filling in the application form he had inadvertently filled in the column against the criminal case as "No" which as per the petitioner is incorrect as a criminal case is pending against him. The competent authority after considering the said affidavit as well as the paragraph 6 of the guidelines issued by the high Court regarding concealment has cancelled the candidature of the petitioner.

¶21

Pendency of criminal case and their concealment has been considered threadbare by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) , wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:

¶22

" 38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion,

¶23

we summarize our conclusion thus:

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

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 : -

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

candidate.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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

¶39

From a perusal of the aforesaid judgment it emerges that the Supreme Court has categorically held that the information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest or

¶40

pendency of criminal case whether before or after entering the into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

¶41

When the disclosure as given by the petitioner while applying for the class IV post is seen in the context of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) it clearly emerges that when the petitioner applied for the said post he concealed the fact of a criminal case being pending against him. Despite the advertisement itself providing space for correction of errors between the period 15.09.2022 to 16.09.2022, no efforts were made by the petitioner for correction of the said reply / answer in filling the application form. The petitioner appeared in two rounds of selection and despite having qualified in the same no effort was made by him to indicate the pendency of case to the competent authority. It is only when the competent authority required the petitioner to submit certain information including an affidavit as to whether any criminal case is pending against the petitioner as was required to be done through the order dated 20.05.2023 that the petitioner claims to have submitted his affidavit dated 02.06.2023 indicating the pendency of the criminal case. The competent authority after considering the said affidavit as well as the paragraph 6 of the guidelines issued by the High Court has cancelled the candidature of the petitioner.

¶42

From perusal of the aforesaid facts it is thus apparent that initially the petitioner has cleverly concealed the fact of pendency of the criminal case. At no stretch of time prior to declaration of the result has this fact has ever been disclosed by the petitioner despite the advertisement itself giving space for correction of entries that may have been made inadvertently. It is only when the competent authority required the petitioner to file an undertaking

¶43

regarding the pendency of criminal case etc that the petitioner has given the information through the affidavit dated 02.06.2023. Thus when the conduct of the petitioner is seen in the context of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) it clearly emerges that there has been deliberate concealment of fact by the petitioner at the time of applying for the said post.

¶44

Considering the aforesaid as well as the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), this Court does not find any error having been committed while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner through the order impugned dated 03.08.2023. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶45

Order Date :- 18.9.2023

¶46

J. K. Dinkar

¶47

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandrajeet Kumar Gond v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrajeet Kumar Gond v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Another

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

Rakesh Bharadwaj Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sri Krishna Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dr. Shiv Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Taibun Nisha Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Sushma Yadav Mahila Constable 1411 C.P. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prince Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others