Hari Om (Constable) vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Home ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4237 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 20
 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7513 of 2016
 
Petitioner :- Hari Om (Constable)
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Home Deptt.Govt.Of India & Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bipin Kumar Singh,Dharm Raj Misra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 23.08.2007 by which the selection of the petitioner on the post of Constable has been cancelled by the Superintendent of Police, Unnao. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 02.06.2014 by which the Superintendent of Police, Unnao has rejected the representation of the petitioner preferred in pursuance of the order dated 18.09.2013 passed by this Court in Writ-A No.50896 of 2013.

3. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the year, 2006, the petitioner was recruited for the post of Constable in Uttar Pradesh Police (Civil). At the time of joining, the petitioner was required to submit an affidavit stating therein that neither any criminal case was registered nor pending nor he was ever sent to jail nor any challan was issued by the police againt him nor there is any investigation pending against him. The petitioner had submitted the affidavit and thereafter, he was sent for training and after completion of training, the petitioner was posted as Constable in District Unnao.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that during police verification, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faizabad had found that an NCR No.77 of 2004, under Sections 323, 427 and 504 IPC and an FIR in Case Crime No.140A of 2000, under Sections 323, 427, 325 IPC were registered against the petitioner at Police Station Usrahar, District Itawah. Vide order dated 31.01.2007, the trial court acquitted the petitioner in both the criminal cases. Thereafter, another FIR was lodged against the petitioner in Case Crime No.2259 of 2007, under Section 420, 201 IPC at Police Station Kotwali, District Faizabad for submitting a false affidavit.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has again submitted that the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur vide order dated 23.08.2007 cancelled the selection of the petitioner on the ground of concealment of criminal cases registered against him. Against the order of cancellation of selection and appointment, the petitioner had approached this Court at Allahabad by way of filing Writ-A No.50896 of 2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 18.09.2013 with a direction that in case any policy decision has been taken to consider the case of similarly situated persons, the case of the petitioner should also be considered by the authority concerned, if the case of the petitioner is falling within the consideration zone of the policy decision. The petitioner has served a copy of the order dated 18.09.2013 to the respondents along with a representation. The representation of the petitioner was considered and the same has been rejected vide order dated 02.06.2013 on the ground that the case of the petitioner is totally different from the candidates who were selected and appointed in the year 2005-06 and collectively, they were ousted from service but later on, they were reinstated in service by a Government Order. The petitioner was involved in a criminal case which was taken place in the year 2004 and has given a wrong affidavit that he is not involved in any criminal case while he was joining the post of Constable.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the act of the petitioner is not deliberate and intentional. The petitioner is not involved in the case of serious nature, therefore, he is entitled for remain in service. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the cases of Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others; [2011 (4) ESC 634 (SC)] and Commissioner of Police and others Vs. Sandeep Kumar; [(2011) 2 UPLBEC 1497].

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has next contended that the petitioner was acquitted in both the cases by the trial court. The cases registered against the petitioner are not serious in nature and also the act of the petitioner is not deliberate, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement in service. The impugned orders have been passed by the respondents without considering the abovesaid facts and, therefore, the same are liable to be set aside.

8. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the respondents have rightly passed the order after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner had submitted a false affidavit concealing the material fact intentionally and deliberately in order to get employment. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any lenient view reinstating him in service.

9. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. I considered the judgments of the Supreme Court. In Sandeep Kumar's case (supra), a criminal case under Section 325/34 IPC was registered against him, in which he was acquitted prior to his recruitment in police. Sandeep Kumar also concealed his case in his affidavit filed at the time of appointment. Supreme Court held that in the young age, the people often commit indiscretion. The young people are not expected to behave like a mature and aged person. Hence approach should be to condone minor indiscretion made in young age rather than to brand them as criminal for rest of their life. In the case of Raj Kuamr (supra) a criminal case under Section 323, 324, 504 IPC was registered against him and he was acquitted prior to his recruitment in police service. He concealed his case in his affidavit filed at the time of his appointment. Supreme Court noticed the Government Order dated 28.04.1958 regarding verification of the character and antecedent of the government servants before their first appointment in service and held that the object of the verification of the character and antecedent of government servant before his first appointment is to ensure that the character of government servant is such as to render him suitable in all aspects for employment in service or post to which he is to be appointed. It would be the duty of the appointing authority to satisfy itself on this point. On the fact that the appellant was acquitted in the criminal case of the charges under Section 323,324,504 IPC it was not all possible for the appointing authority to take a view that the appellant was not suitable for appointment on the post of police constable.

11. In Raj Kumar's case both the cases of Sandeep Kumar and Kendrya Vidyalaya Sangathan were considered by the Supreme Court. Supreme Court noticed that in the case of Kendrya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Ram Ratan Yadav was appointed as 'Physical Education Teacher' in the school and held that character, conduct and antecedents of a teacher may have some impact on the mind of student of impressionable age. Supreme Court distinguished this case and held that for the charges under Section 323,324,504 I.P.C. it was not all possible for the appointing authority to take a view that the appellant was not suitable for appointment on the post of police constable.

12. The facts of this case in similar to the cases of Sandeep Kumar and Raj Kumar (supra) and Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 1991 of 2011, Satyendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 18.4.2012. In the present case, it is apparent from the judgment passed by the trial court that the petitioner has been acquitted as the prosecution has failed to prove his case beyond doubt.

13. It is settled law that when an incumbent does not discharge any duty, the principle of "no work no pay" would be applicable. This consistent view has been taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court keeping in view the public interest that any government servant who does not discharge his duty should not be allowed to draw pay and allowances at the cost of public exchequer.

14. In view of above, pendency of the criminal case itself does not dis-entitle the petitioner to remain in service. Following the aforementioned judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Division Bench of this Court, this writ petition is allowed.

15. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. However, in view of the principle "no work no pay", the petitioner shall not be entitled for back wages for the period his services was cancelled by the impugned order dated 23.08.2007.

Order Date :- 22.3.2021

akverma