Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Chandra Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 5 August, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9312 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bipin Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
The present petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"A- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of suitable mandamus directing the respondent authorities, permitting to join the petitioner on the post of Constable, Uttar Pradesh Civil Police, Pursuant to appointment/call letter dated 7.3.2021, in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the pendency of petty old criminal case."
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially posted as Sepoy in the Indian Army and completed 17 years of service and retired on 30th April, 2020. In terms of the subsequent notification issued by the U.P. Police Department on 14.1.2018, the petitioner applied for being considered for appointment and passed the examination and was eligible for consideration, however the petitioner has been orally informed that in view of the pending Case Crime No. 332 of 2002, under Sections 323, 504, 325, 452, 506 IPC, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the said case, a final report was filed, against which a protest petition has been filed and the matter is pending since then. In any event, he argues that considering the nature of the offences alleged in the said case, the petitioner could not have been denied the grant of employment, moreso in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others; (2016) 8 SCC 471. In the case of Avtar Singh (Supra), the Supreme Court had considered the question of pendency of cases while granting employment and in para 38 had observed as under:-
"38 We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:
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.
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.
38.3 The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
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 recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
38.11 Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."
In the light of the said judgment and in the light of the alleged case pending against the petitioner, in which final report had already been filed, the respondents are directed to process the candidature of the petitioner in accordance with the judgment in the case of Avtar Singh (Supra) within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of a copy of the order before the respondent concerned.
The petition is disposed off in terms of the said order.
Copy of the order download from the official website of this Court shall be treated/accepted as certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 5.8.2021
S. Rahman
