Devesh Chand vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2264 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved on 27.04.2022
 
Delivered on 07.05.2022
 
Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 589 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Devesh Chand
 
Respondent :- The State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishakha Pande,Jyoti Kumar Singh,Sr. Advocate
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. A person who wants to become a member of disciplined force should be of impeccable character and in this regard para 20 of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) and Ors. vs. Methu Meda, (2022) 1 SCC 1 (after considering the earlier judgments in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2016)8 SCC 471 and Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Anr. v. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685) is relevant, which is reproduced as under:

"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)."

2. In the above legal background, this Court proceed to consider the rival submissions of counsels of the parties on the basis of facts which are not in dispute.

3. Petitioner was involved in three criminal cases and details thereof as well as the outcome of investigation are as follows:

1. Case Crime No. 24 of 2005, under Sections 147, 308, 504, 506 IPC, wherein after trial petitioner (who was declared juvenile) was acquitted.

2. Case Crime No. 272 of 2018, under Sections 147, 341, 323, 506 IPC, wherein after investigation final report was submitted, which has been accepted by concerned Court.

3. Case Crime No. 807 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 467, 471, 120B, 504, 506 IPC, wherein after investigation final report was submitted but not accepted till date.

4. Facts of the case further disclose that despite respondent-authorities found that petitioner was involved in the cases mentioned at Serial Nos. 1 and 2, still he was permitted for training in pursuance of recruitment process for the post of Sub-Inspector in U.P. Police. However, a five day leave was sanctioned from 22.04.2021 to 27.04.2021 but thereafter he remained absent. During training it was found that petitioner was also involved in the case which is at Serial No. 3 wherein after investigation final report was submitted, however it is still not accepted. In these circumstances, under the procedure prescribed vide Government Order dated 28.04.1958 the petitioner was not found fit for disciplined force. Petitioner then approached this Court by filing Writ-A No. 6175 of 2021 which was disposed of vide order dated 30.07.2021 with the direction to respondents to consider the case of petitioner in the light of judgment passed in Avtar Singh (supra). Respondents considered the representation of petitioner and come to the conclusion that a person who is not of a impeccable character and has criminal antecedents, would not fit for appointment in disciplined force and also that in the case mentioned at Serial No. 3, final report has not been accepted till date.

5. Ms. Vishakha Pande, learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently relied on the judgment in Avtar Singh (supra) and submits that in facts and circumstances of the present case petitioner can be considered in the light of paras 38.4.1. and 38.4.3 of the judgment, which are reproduced as under:

"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.

38.4.3 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."

6. Per contra, Dr. Amarnath Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents, submits that in the present case petitioner has suppressed the material information that he was involved in three criminal cases. He fairly submits that though in the criminal cases referred above, in one case petitioner was acquitted, in second case final report was submitted and accepted by concerned Court and in third case final report was submitted but not accepted till date, still it is open to the employer to consider the suitability of candidate in the light of his involvement in criminal cases. He further submits that petitioner also remained absent from training and considering the nature of criminal cases the benefit of aforesaid paras of Avtar Singh (supra) cannot be granted to petitioner.

7. I have heard learned counsel for parties at length and perused the material available on record.

8. On the basis of averments made in the writ petition as well as the other records, it appears that petitioner has suppressed the information of his involvement in three criminal cases. The respondents have allowed petitioner to join training even though they had knowledge that petitioner was involved in two criminal cases (at Serial Nos. 1 and 2). However, during training it was found that petitioner was involved in another case, i.e., at Serial No. 3.

9. In Methu Meda (supra) Supreme Court after considering Avtar Singh (supra) and Mehar Singh (supra) has held that in such cases the employer may have a right to consider all relevant facts available as to the antecedents and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of employee and he cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. In the present case, petitioner has suppressed the information that he was involved in three criminal cases. Further, petitioner remained absent in training. However, the facts depicts that final reports were submitted as well as the allegations in the FIR appears to be trivial in nature, therefore, a case is made out for granting benefit of Para 38.4.1 and 38.4.3 of Avtar Singh (supra).

10. In the present case, in two cases final report was submitted and in third case petitioner was tried as Juvenile and was acquitted also. In this regard a judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shivam Maurya vs. State of U.P. and others, 2020(5) ADJ 6 where the Court has considered involvement of a juvenile in a criminal case and its effect in recruitment in Police Department and the relevant para 14 of the judgment is reproduced as under:

"14. The said Act is a beneficial legislation. The principles of such beneficial legislation are to be applied only for the purpose of interpretation of this statute. The concealment of the pendency of criminal case against the appellant-petitioner was of no consequence. As per the requirement of law a conviction in an offence will not be treated as a disqualification for a juvenile. The records of the case pertaining to his involvement in a criminal matter are to be obliterated after a specified period of time. The intention of the legislature is clear that in so far as juveniles are concerned their criminal records is not to stand in their way in their lives. The cancellation of the candidature of the appellant-petitioner was thus bad. The authority concerned failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant-petitioner was entitled to benefit of the provisions of Act of 2000. The cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner goes contrary to the object sought to be achieved by the Act of 2000. Section 19 of the Act of 2000 protects a juvenile and any stigma attached to his conviction is also removed. The Act of 2000 does not envisage incarceration of a juvenile which clearly shows that the intention and object was not to shut the doors of a disciplined and decent civilised life. It provides him an opportunity to mend his life for the future."

11. In view of above discussion on fact and law this Court is of the view that a case of interference is made out. The writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 03.12.2021 is hereby set aside.

Order Date :- 07.05.2022

AK