Allahabad High Court
Sandeep Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 3 November, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4850 of 2022
Petitioner :- Sandeep Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jata Shankar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record.
Heard learned learned counsel for the petitioner.
Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.2.2022 whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated only on the ground of concealment of fact pertaining to the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner at the time of filing of the affidavit.
Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of lodging of the criminal case, the petitioner was a juvenile. He argues that even otherwise the case registered being NCR No.44 of 2016 was under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, which can have no bearing to the services in which the petitioner was absorbed. He places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shivam Maurya v. State of U.P. and Ors.; 2020 (3) AWC 2902 wherein this Court had the occasion to consider the Juvenile Justice Act and its effect on the juveniles. In the said case also the petitioner had not disclosed the pendency of the criminal case. This Court had considered the scope of the Juvenile Justice Act and proceeded to deal with the issue with directions that the benefit that flow from the Juvenile Justice Act cannot be denied for future employment and directions were issued for reinstating the petitioner there within a period of 30 days.
He further places reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.; Civil Appeal No.6955 of 2022 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.20860 of 2019 decided on 26.9.2022wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the entire law on the issue discerned the following principle:
"69. In such circumstances, we undertook some exercise to shortlist the broad principles of law which should be made applicable to the litigations of the present nature. The principles are as follows:
a) Each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by the public employer concerned, through its designated officials?more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society?s security. [See Raj Kumar (supra)].
b) Even in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. The acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post. It would be still open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether the candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post.
c) The suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification Form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee. If it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service.
d) The generalisations about the youth, career prospects and age of the candidates leading to condonation of the offenders? conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided.
e) The Court should inquire whether the Authority concerned whose action is being challenged acted mala fide.
f) Is there any element of bias in the decision of the Authority?
g) Whether the procedure of inquiry adopted by the Authority concerned was fair and reasonable?"
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Para 69(c) of the said judgement to argue that it is incumbent upon the employer to consider the suppression in the light of two factors - one that the petitioner was juvenile at the time on the lodging of the case and second whether it would have any bearing on the fitness or suitability to the post - which two aspects have not been considered.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra), the impugned order dated 24.2.2022 is set aside.
The matter is remanded to the authority concerned i.e. respondent no.3 to decide the issue afresh and pass fresh orders considering the law laid down in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra), specifically Para 69(c) of the judgement, as quoted above and the judgment of this Court in the case of Shivam Maurya (supra), with all expedition, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowedin above terms.
Order Date :- 3.11.2022
Nishant
