Allahabad High Court
Vishal Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 16 May, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Judgement Reserved on 5.5.2022
Delivered on 16.5.2022
Court No. - 66
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6654 of 2022
Petitioner :- Vishal Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam,Ishir Sripat,Sr. Advocate,Vinod Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Shri. Vinod Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri.Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Undisputedly, petitioner remained successful in recruitment process on the post of Constable, but he did not disclose that an F.I.R. dated 8.1.2021 bearing Case Crime No.012 of 2021 under Sections 452, 354B, 506 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act was lodged against him in the affidavit at stage of verification filed on 20.8.2021. The respondents cancelled the candidature of petitioner as contents of the affidavit were found to be false due to suppression of material information about F.I.R.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner on 8.1.2021 and after investigation Final Report was submitted on 11.2.2021, therefore, when the affidavit was filed on 20.8.2021, no investigation or trial was pending against him, nor he was arrested, therefore, information given by him in the affidavit was not incorrect. However, he fairly submitted that petitioner ought to have informed about the status of F.I.R. He further submitted that since Final Report is now accepted on 3.2.2022, therefore, considering subsequent events and in light of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India 2016 (8) SCC 471, that suppression of fact if any, could be condoned and petitioner be allowed to complete the training. He has also pointed out that the petitioner submitted an affidavit before the respondents on 15.1.2022 disclosing all facts including criminal case in which Final Report was accepted.
4. Learned Standing Counsel has not disputed the submissions on fact which are supported by documents annexed along with this petition. He has relied upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Methu Meda, (2022) 1 SCC 1, that a person who wishes to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude, having impeccable character and integrity of a person having criminal background would not be fit in that category.
5. In the above background of facts and law, considering that after investigation Final Report was submitted in the above referred criminal case which was accepted on 30.1.2022 and also taking note that petitioner has submitted a fresh affidavit on 15.1.2022 i.e. much before the impugned order was passed on 30.3.2022 disclosing all the facts that Final Report was already submitted, a case for interference is made out.
6. It is true that petitioner ought to have disclosed lodging of F.I.R. against him at the time when the affidavit was filed however, he has suppressed the said information.
7. This Court is of the opinion that case of the petitioner could be considered in light of paragraphs 38.4.1, 38.4.2 and 38.4.7 ignoring such suppression of fact by condoning the lapse because after investigation, Final Report was submitted and accepted as well. It is relevant to mention paragraph nos. 38.4.1, 38.4.2 and 38.4.7 of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India (supra) which are mentioned hereinafter:
" 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.
38.7. 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."
8. In this regard, paragraph 13 of the recent judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India and Anr, 2022 SCC Online SC 532, is relevant which is mentioned hereinafter:
"13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What being noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service."
9. In view of the above analysis and discussion the impugned order dated 31.3.2022 is set-aside. The writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to proceed further from the stage when the impugned order was passed.
Order Date:- 16.5.2022
SB
