Allahabad High Court
Ajay Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 30 June, 2021
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?
Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5747 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gopal Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
The Court is presently working on virtual mode only due to serge in Covid-19 cases.
Heard Sri Gopal Ji Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, inter-alia, with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Constable in Civil Police. The facts in brief as contained in the present writ petition are that the petitioner being eligible to the post of Constable having requisite qualifications applied for the same. The petitioner was allotted Roll No.423203033 and duly participated in the written examination and he passed the same successfully. Subsequently, the documents submitted by the petitioner were duly verified by the concerned department. The petitioner secured 196.5699 marks out of 300 which is more than the cut of merit. It is argued that subsequently the petitioner was also examined by the medical board and found medically fit. Insofar as the appointment on the post of Civil Police is concerned, it is further argued that since the case is pending against the petitioner being Case Crime No.409/2014, under Sections 498A and 307 IPC at Police Station Pareekshatgarh, District Meerut, the respondents are not issuing appointment letter to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471. Paragraph 38 of the aforesaid judgment which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is reproduced below:-
"38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize 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 recourse 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 this view of the matter, it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents be directed to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner. It is further argued that since no appointment letter was issued to the petitioner and representation was also made by him before the competent authority on 05.04.2021, copy of which is appended as Annexure No.8 to the writ petition and when no action was taken on the same, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation ventilating all his grievances before the concerned competent authority alongwith copy of this order as well as the copy of present writ petition within a period of three weeks from today. If such a representation is filed, the concerned competent authority is directed to pass appropriate order on the same most expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of such representation.
Order Date :- 30.6.2021
pks
