Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 23 February, 2021
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2750 of 2021
Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Patel
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner's claim for appointment has been rejected on account of his implication in NCR No.52 of 2009, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC. The order impugned records that petitioner had disclosed on an affidavit about his implication in the above case but in his original application he has suppressed such information.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the above case and due to inadvertence such detail was left out in the original application from the petitioner but he himself has disclosed pendency of above case in his affidavit. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others, 2016 (8) SCC 471, in order to submit that petitioner's claim is required to be considered by the appointing authority in light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court. Para 38 of the judgment in Avtar Singh (supra) reads 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."
Since the consideration by the competent authority for the purposes of denying appointment to petitioner is not in accordance with law laid down in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), consequently, the order impugned dated 28.1.2020 cannot be sustained.
Writ petition, accordingly, is allowed. The appointing authority shall re-visit the issue keeping in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court in para 38 of the aforesaid judgment and the observations made in this order. The order impugned in the writ petition shall remain subject to the fresh orders to be passed by the District Judge, Allahabad. Required consideration would be made within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order.
Order Date :- 23.2.2021
Anil
