Allahabad High Court
Triveni Prasad vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 3 September, 2014
Bench: Rakesh Tiwari, Ashok Pal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 36
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 803 of 2014
Appellant :- Triveni Prasad
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.
Hon'ble Ashok Pal Singh,J.
( By Hon. Rakesh Tiwari, J.)
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This intra court appeal has been preferred challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 30.5.2014 passed by the Writ Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition (A) No. 27571 of 1999 & Civil Misc. Writ Petition (A) No. 55097 of 2000, Triveni Prasad versus State of U.P. and others.
The judgment and order dated 30.5.2014 is challenged by the appellant on the ground that it is illegal and is not sustainable in the eye of law for the reason that it has failed to take cognizance of the fact that the appellant had neither been named in the FIR and as such nor could have any information of the criminal case registered against him. Therefore, there was no fault of the appellant in filling up the application form. The Criminal Case No. 4636 of 2006, under Sections 420, 467,468 and 471 IPC filed by the respondents after his termination has also attained finality upon his acquittal by the Court below vide judgment and order dated 27.7.2012.
Learned Standing counsel has supported the finding recorded by the Writ Court in the impugned judgment and submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in it, hence no interference is required by this Court.
Having considered the rival submissions of the parties we find that the contention of learned counsel for the appellant has been noted in the impugned judgment by the Writ Court thus:-
"The selection/ appointment of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground of submission of false affidavit and concealment of pendency of criminal case.
The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner was subsequently acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment and order dated 17.11.2001. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that at the relevant time, the petitioner was about 17 years of age and relying upon a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2011 SC 2903 and Commissioner of Police Vs. Sandeep Kumar, JT 2011 (3) SC 484, he submitted that at such a tender age, if a mistake has been committed, the petitioner should not be penalised by cancelling his selection.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the printed/ typed proforma of the affidavit was furnished to the petitioner, who signed the same without going through the contents thereof. As he was only about 17 years of age, he did not have requisite understanding about the importance of the said affidavit and the consequences thereof.
Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, submits that as the petitioner had filed false affidavit and had concealed material fact, therefore, he was not suitable for the post in question and his selection was rightly cancelled."
From perusal of the aforesaid it is apparent that no contention regarding Criminal Case No. 4636 of 2006, under Sections 420, 467,468 and 471 IPC was raised by the petitioner therein and it cannot be raised now in the appeal for the first time. The Writ Court after noticing the fact that the petitioner-appellant had filed a false affidavit concealing the material facts held that he was not suitable for appointment on the post in question and his selection was rightly cancelled. The Writ Court has recorded finding thus:-
"The fact that the petitioner was subsequently acquitted on 17.11.2001 is of no relevance. What is of relevance is as to whether the criminal case was pending against him on the date of selection and on the date of furnishing the notary affidavit or not. If the same was pending, then the petitioner was guilty of deliberate suppression of material fact and of filing a false affidavit, which by itself had rendered him unsuitable for appointment in the police force as it clearly reflected his mindset and character. As it is undisputed that the criminal case was pending on the relevant date and the petitioner filed a false affidavit as aforesaid, the consequences would follow as per paragraphs 11 & 14 of the same affidavit. Therefore, the respondents cannot be faulted for having cancelled the selection/ appointment of the petitioner. "
The Court also found reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the case of Commissioner of Police vs. Sandeep Kumar, JT 2011 (3) SC-484 was mis-conceded as it was clearly distinguishable on facts from the case in hand. In that case, the petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal case prior to his appointment whereas facts of this case before us are different as is apparent from preceding paragraphs.
Lastly, the Writ Court considered the fact that the petitioner had only undergone training in the year 1999-2000 i.e. about 14 years back and that with the passage of time whatever training he had received stands washed out for the reason that he had not worked even for a single day as constable w.e.f. 26.8.2000. Being more than 30 years of age at present, the Writ Court was of the view that it would be unreasonable to direct reinstatement of the petitioner in the circumstances of this case.
We fully concur with the aforesaid finding and do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Writ Court, hence no interference is required by this Court.
For the reasons stated above, the special appeal is dismissed.
Dated: 3.9.2014
CPP/-
