Allahabad High Court
Dharmendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home ... on 24 April, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18898 of 2019
Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhay Raj Singh,Anupesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Abhay Raj Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh Rathore, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
2. Being aggrieved by the cancellation of selection of the petitioner on the post of Constable in Uttar Pradesh Police (Civil)/Provincial Armed Constabulary through direct recruitment of 2015, he has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 28.02.2019 passed by opposite party No.3 i.e. Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur Kheri.
3. The petitioner got selected for the post of Constable. However, after selection, during the scrutiny of documents of the petitioner, it was noticed that a criminal case bearing Case Crime No.182 of 2017 under Section 66(E) of Information Technology Act, 2000 was pending against him. Initially, the F.I.R. was registered under Section 376 and 506 I.P.C. against the petitioner but during the course of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed under Section 66(E) of Information Technology Act, 2000 for the allegation that the petitioner had forwarded the nude photographs of the prosecutrix to several persons to black-mail her besides the petitioner did not have the requisite character certificate issued by the competent authority on the date when his credentials were examined and his documents were verified. The petitioner's selection got cancelled.
4. Shri Abhay Raj Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges and therefore, the very offence because of which his selection was cancelled does not stand at present and he should be offered appointment.
5. On the other hand, Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh Rathore, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submits that the petitioner was charge-sheeted and a criminal case was pending against him and he also did not have the certificate of good character and moral values, therefore, his candidature was cancelled. The case of the petitioner was not of trivial nature, his subsequent acquittal will not effect the order of cancellation inasmuch as on the date when his documents were verified, the petitioner did not have the requisite certificate good character and moral values. He further, submitted that reliance of the petitioner on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Avatar Singh vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 has no application in the case of the petitioner inasmuch as in the said case, it was held that if a criminal case is of trivial nature, then considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the employer may in its discretion appoint a candidate, subject to final outcome of the trail of the said offence. The Supreme Court has not mandated that in trivial nature of criminal case, the candidate must be appointed, if he has qualified for the appointment. The Supreme Court itself left it to the discretion of the appointing authority.
6. In the present case, allegations against the petitioner were very serious in nature. The police force is a discipline organization of persons in uniform. A person having such allegations cannot be appointed in such an organization and therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the appointing authority has not found the petitioner fit to be offered appointment on the post of Constable in Uttar Pradesh Police (Civil)/Provincial Armed Constabulary.
7. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties.
8. I find substance in the submissions of Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh Rathore, learned Standing Counsel. The Supreme Court in the case of Avatar Singh (supra) has not held that in all cases where a candidate is facing a trivial nature of offence, the appointing authority must offer him appointment subject to the final outcome of the trial of the said case. It depends on the nature of allegations, its impact on the society. Further, the Supreme Court has left it to the discretion of the appointing authority to take an overall view of the matter.
9. In the present case, since, the allegations were of serious nature having moral turpitude, this Court does not find that the appointing authority has committed any error while cancelling the selection of the petitioner on the ground that he was facing a criminal trial for an offence under Section 66(E) of Information Technology Act, 2000 for serious allegations.
10. In view thereof, I do not find substance in the present petition, which is hereby dismissed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)
Order Date :- 24.4.2023
Piyush/-
