Allahabad High Court
Durgesh Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 27 July, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6632 of 2022
Petitioner :- Durgesh Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Saxena
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Petitioner is desirous to become a Constable in U.P. Police, however he is not a person of impeccable character and admittedly he was involved in a criminal case of assisting in concealment of stolen property (Section 414 IPC) wherein after investigation charge sheet was submitted on 28.05.2014 and trial is still pending.
2. Sri Pradeep Saxena, learned counsel for petitioner, submits that he has disclosed about that criminal case in the affidavit, however details thereof were not mentioned. The candidature of petitioner was not considered and in these circumstances petitioner approached this Court by filing present writ petition seeking following reliefs:
"A. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 to issue a joining letter of training of Constable PAC (Male) Direct Recruitment-2015 in pursuance of Police Constable Recruitment Examination PRPB-1 (82)/2015, otherwise petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.
B. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of interim mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 to permit the petitioner to join training of Constable PAC (Male) Direct Recruitment-2015 in pursuance of Police Constable Recruitment Examination PRPB-1 (82)/2015, provisionally, during the pendency of the present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court, otherwise petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."
3. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that as the trial is still pending and petitioner is not a convicted person, therefore, in the light of principles enumerated in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others, 2016(8) SCC 471 petitioner's candidature could be considered as the offence alleged is minor/ trivial/ petty, in nature.
4. Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents, submits that though declaration was made in attestation form, however, details of criminal case were not disclosed and on the basis of character verification the details of criminal case were revealed and considering that charge sheet was filed and trial is pending, candidature of petitioner was not considered.
5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.
6. For adjudication of present case it would be relevant to quote para 20 of a recent judgment passed by Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Methu Meda, (2022) 1 SCC 1:
"20. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear the respondent who wishes to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude and have impeccable character and integrity. A person having a criminal antecedents would not be fit in this category. The employer is having right to consider the nature of acquittal or decide until he is completely exonerated because even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee and the decision of the Committee would be final unless mala fide. In the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra), this Court has taken the same view, as reiterated in the case of Mehar Singh (supra). The same view has again been reiterated by this Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra)."
(Emphasis added)
7. In the present case, from the facts it is evident that petitioner is not a person of utmost rectitude, impeccable character and integrity. Petitioner is facing trial for an offence under Section 414 IPC, i.e., for assisting in concealment of stolen property, which is punishable with a term which may extend upto three years. In Avtar Singh (supra) Supreme Court held that in these circumstances, the Court cannot direct employer to appoint a person whose character is not clean, which is reiterated in Methu Meda (supra) also. Therefore, considering the above facts and law on the issue, a person, such as petitioner, who is involved in a criminal case for offence under Section 414 IPC and trial is pending, is not suitable to become a member of police force, as he may poses a threat to the discipline of police force.
8. I, therefore, find no illegality in the order whereby petitioner's candidature has not been forwarded. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.7.2022
AK
