Allahabad High Court
Ravi Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 31 October, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2305 of 2020
Petitioner :- Ravi Tiwari
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava,Ajay Kumar Rai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
The present petition has been filed stating that in terms of the advertisement issued for recruitment in the Civil Police and PAC, the petitioner had applied and passed the test. The petitioner was called upon to file an affidavit in terms of the advertisement which the petitioner filed on 05.06.2018 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition)
The candidature of the petitioner was rejected on 29.09.2018 mainly on the ground that the petitioner while filing the affidavit had not made disclosure of Criminal Case No.285 of 2016 pending against him under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323 and 325 IPC at Police Station Nizamabad, District Azamgarh.
The petitioner approached this Court challenging the order dated 29.09.2018 by filing Writ-A No.23265 of 2018 which was disposed off vide order dated 30.10.2018 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Avatar Singh vs Union of India; (2016) 8 SCC 471.
In pursuance to the said direction, a fresh order came to be passed on 10.12.2018 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. The said order is impugned in the present writ petition.
A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the defence taken by the petitioner was that he was not aware of the pendency of the criminal case, thus there was nothing wrong in the affidavit filed by the petitioner without disclosing the pendency of criminal case was disbelieved solely on the ground that the petitioner had filed an affidavit on 05.06.2018 and has been acquitted on 04.08.2018, as such, prima facie it cannot be accepted that the petitioner was not aware of the pendency of the criminal case.
The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit annexing therewith a copy of the order-sheet of the Criminal Case No.285 of 2016 which reveals that on 17.04.2018 summons were issued against the accused and thereafter on 02.08.2018, the petitioner had appeared and was enlarged on bail.
Thus from the perusal of the order-sheet, it is clear that the petitioner was not aware of the pendency of the criminal case and as such, to that extent the order dated 10.12.2018 cannot be sustained.
The Counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav vs Union of India and others [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.20860 of 2019] decided on 26.09.2022 wherein the Supreme Court after considering all the judgments including the judgment of Avatar Singh's Case (Supra) had clarified the law which is as under:
"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?"
Thus in the light of the said judgment coupled with the fact that the material on record clearly demonstrates that the petitioner was not aware of the criminal case pending against him, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.12.2018 is set aside.
The matter is remanded to the Superintendent of Police to pass a fresh order taking into account the directions given by this Court in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav (Supra) and also the order-sheet of Criminal Case No.285 of 2016 which clearly demonstrates that the petitioner was not aware of the criminal proceedings as on the date of the filing of the affidavit. The said exercise shall be carried out by the Superintendent of Police with all expeditions preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 31.10.2022
akverma
