Allahabad High Court
Shaheed Khan vs State Of U.P. And Others on 7 May, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on 26.04.2022
Delivered on 07.05.2022
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20662 of 2007
Petitioner :- Shaheed Khan
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- I.K. Chaturvedi,Shamshuddin Khan,Vijay Gautam
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. The petitioner was successfully selected in the recruitment process initiated in pursuance of advertisement issued on 04.09.2006 for Police Constable in U.P. Police Force. During verification it was found that petitioner was involved in two criminal cases and that he has undisputedly not mentioned correct facts in the affidavit, therefore, vide order dated 06.03.2007 the services of petitioner were terminated while he was undergoing training. This order is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner, submits that petitioner has no knowledge about pendency of criminal cases against him, therefore, it was not a case where intentionally information was withheld, rather it was a case of want of knowledge. He further submits that in view of subsequent events the impugned order can be set aside and petitioner may be allowed to join the training. In this regard he placed reliance on paras 38.4.1 and 38.4.3 of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others, 2016(8) SCC 471 as well as this Court's judgment passed in Sonu Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others, (2021)ILR 1All 730.
3. Before this Court proceed to consider the submission of opposition, it is relevant to mention the above paras of Avtar Singh (supra) as well as the subsequent events happened during pendency of this writ petition with regard to two criminal cases, wherein petitioner was involved.
Paras 38.4.1 and 38.4.3 of Avtar Singh (supra)
"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."
Details of Criminal Cases
1. Case Crime No. 143 of 2003, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC, wherein after investigation final report was submitted on 16.09.2003 which was accepted by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur vide order dated 23.08.2009.
2. Case Crime No. 798A of 2006, under Sections 307, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC, wherein after investigation final report was submitted on 17.09.2006 but the same was rejected and petitioner and other co-accused were undergone trial. However, the Trial Court vide order dated 17.05.2013 acquitted petitioner as well as co-accused by granting benefit of doubt.
4. Sri Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel-II, has opposed the above submissions and submits that despite the fact that two FIRs were lodged well before filing of affidavit, petitioner in specific terms has mentioned that no criminal proceeding was pending in any Court and that an undertaking was also given that in case declaration made in the affidavit was found false, an adverse order could be passed against petitioner.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the format of affidavit was only to declare, whether any proceedings were pending before any Court and factually at the time of filing of affidavit no criminal proceedings were pending in any Court against petitioner.
6. In the above background on facts and law, it is evident that petitioner has not disclosed about the fact that two FIRs were lodged against him. Though the format does not strictly require, however, petitioner, who was going to be a part of disciplined force, was duty bound to disclose the details of criminal cases. The explanation given by learned counsel for petitioner regarding want of knowledge appears to be not based on record as the first FIR was lodged in the year 2003 and second FIR was lodged in 2006 wherein investigation was pending when on 25.08.2006 affidavit was submitted.
7. Be that as it may, even in these circumstances this Court has to consider, whether benefit of above referred paras of Avtar Singh (supra) may be granted to petitioner or not.
8. On the basis of documents available on record, in the first criminal case the final report was submitted and it was accepted by Trial Court in the year 2009. So far as second case is concerned, though final report was submitted, however it was rejected and petitioner alongwith co-accused faced trial wherein they were acquitted as the prosecution was failed to prove case against them beyond reasonable doubt.
9. I find merit in the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that the case of petitioner, specifically in the light of subsequent events, as referred above, can be considered for appointment in view of paras 38.4.1 and 38.4.3 of Avtar Singh (supra) on the ground that in the first FIR after investigation final report was submitted and in second after final report was rejected, petitioner was acquitted after trial. I have perused the contents of FIRs as well as the order passed by Trial Court and found that the allegations were of trivial in nature and that after these FIRs no other criminal proceedings are brought on record against petitioner. Therefore, considering that petitioner has improved himself, a case is made out by petitioner to grant benefit of above referred paras of Avtar Singh (supra).
10. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 06.03.2007 is hereby set aside. Respondents are directed to sent petitioner for training. However, it is made clear that petitioner has to face the rigor of training and in case respondents find that petitioner is not able to complete training satisfactorily, they are at liberty to proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 07.05.2022
AK
