Allahabad High Court
Lavkush Verma vs State Ofu.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko ... on 1 August, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4761 of 2022
Petitioner :- Lavkush Verma
Respondent :- State Ofu.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shitla Prasad Tripathi,Amresh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Petitioner has been selected for appointment on the post of Constable in 25th Battalion, P.A.C., Ghaziabad but on account of his implication in NCR No.811 of 2019 under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Lalganj, District Pratpgarh, his candidature has not been considered. It is stated that ultimately no evidence has been found against the petitioner upon conclusion of investigation, and therefore in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others, 2016 (8) SCC 471, petitioner's claim for appointment is liable to be considered as per law. 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."
Learned Standing Counsel states that an appropriate decision would be taken by the competent authority.
In the facts of the present case it would be appropriate to direct the second respondent to examine petitioner's claim for appointment in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) and the aspects relating to petitioner's implication in criminal case would be got examined in light of the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. An appropriate decision would be taken within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. Petitioner shall be at liberty to annex all materials in support of his plea.
With the above observations/directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 1.8.2022
Ravi/
