Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Verma vs State Of U.P. And Others on 22 July, 2011
Bench: Krishna Murari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 59089 of 2007
Petitioner :- Rakesh Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Sunil Kumar Singh,Y.S.Saxena
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C., S. Upadhyay
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard Sri Y. S. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
This petition is directed against the order dated 31.8.2007 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit cancelling the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Constable on the ground that he has made a false statement in the affidavit that no criminal case was registered or pending against him.
The case of the petitioner is that he had disclosed in the affidavit that NCR has been registered against him and had also disclosed that the same is pending.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in column 6 of the affidavit, it was clearly mentioned that NCR was registered against him and is pending. It has further been pointed out that the said NCR was converted into first information report and registered as criminal case no. 5098 of 2008. It has further been pointed out that vide judgment and order dated 2.12.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkarnagar, he has been acquitted.
In reply, learned Standing Counsel has urged that the fact fact criminal case is pending consideration in court of law since it was not disclosed in the affidavit and as such his appointment has rightly been cancelled on the ground of making false statement in the affidavit.
I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
NCR was registered against the petitioner on 17.5.2005 which was numbered as NCR No. 45 of 2005. Affidavit was filed by him on 17.11.2006. A perusal of the said affidavit filed as Annexure '1' to the rejoinder affidavit goes to show that in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the affidavit, it has clearly been mentioned that NCR has been registered against him in Police Station Raje Sultanpur, district Ambedkarnagar. In paragraph 5 of the rejoinder affidavit it has been pleaded by the petitioner that NCR was lateron converted into first information report in the year 2007 under the orders of the court on an application under Section 155 (2) Cr. P. C. Summons were issued by the court to the petitioner in the year 2007. Thus, the petitioner had no occasion to disclose all these developments which took place after he has filed the affidavit. In so far as registering of NCR against him is concerned, the said fact has clearly been disclosed in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the affidavit. The petitioner has also been acquitted of the charges against him.
In view of the above, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court has no hesitation in holding that petitioner cannot be castigated for filing false affidavit as he had disclosed registration of NCR against him and the subsequent developments of conversion of the NCR into first information report and the criminal case in which he has also been acquitted could not have been disclosed in the said affidavit and thus, the petitioner cannot be held guilty of concealment of fact in the affidavit.
Thus, the impugned order dated 31.8.2007 cancelling the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that he has filed false affidavit cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. The petitioner shall be entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
Order Date :- 22.7.2011
Dcs
