Allahabad High Court
Ankit Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 18 August, 2023
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:54939
Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5823 of 2023
Petitioner :- Ankit Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Vishwakarma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh Rathore, learned State counsel for opposite parties.
This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 05.06.2023 whereby the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment in lieu of services rendered by his late father has been rejected. Further prayer has been made seeking a direction to opposite parties for appointment of petitioner on compassionate ground against any class IV post.
It has been submitted that the impugned order has been passed rejecting the petitioner's application only on the ground that in criminal case no.269 of 2014 under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, the petitioner has been acquitted by means of judgment and order dated 04.06.2019 giving the benefit of doubt and not honorably. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the judgment and order dated 04.06.2019 has attained finality since no appeal was filed. It has also been submitted that once the petitioner had been acquitted from the charges levelled against him, there was no occasion for the opposite parties to have rejected his application for compassionate appointment, the purpose of which is beneficial in nature to provide succor to family of deceased employee.
Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others reported in (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 471 to buttress his submission.
Learned State counsel appearing for opposite parties has refuted submissions of learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that as has been indicated in the judgment of Avtar Singh (supra) itself, it would be material fact whether a person has been acquitted honorably or only giving the benefit of doubt on technical reason. It has been submitted that in the present case the petitioner although has been acquitted but it is only on technical grounds giving benefit of doubt and not honorably. Due to factum which has been considered in the impugned order particularly in light of paragraph 9 (a) of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 where under only such person can be employed in the government service who is of impeccable character. Petitioner not coming within the said criteria, his representation has been rejected.
Upon consideration of submission advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed, placing reliance on judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), having found petitioner of not impeccable character since acquittal is not on honorable basis but only giving benefit of doubt due to which the petitioner has been found unfit for employment.
In the case of Avtar Singh (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has enunciated the following:-
"30. The employer is given 'discretion' to terminate or otherwise to condone the omission. Even otherwise, once employer has the power to take a decision when at the time of filling verification form declarant has already been convicted/acquitted, in such a case, it becomes obvious that all the facts and attending circumstances, including impact of suppression or false information are taken into consideration while adjudging suitability of an incumbent for services in question. In case the employer come to the conclusion that suppression is immaterial and even if facts would have been disclosed would not have affected adversely fitness of an incumbent, for reasons to be recorded, it has power to condone the lapse. However, while doing so employer has to act prudently on due consideration of nature of post and duties to be rendered. For higher officials/higher posts, standard has to be very high and even slightest false information or suppression may by itself render a person unsuitable for the post. However same standard cannot be applied to each and every post. In concluded criminal cases, it has to be seen what has been suppressed is material fact and would have rendered an incumbent unfit for appointment. An employer would be justified in not appointing or if appointed to terminate services of such incumbent on due consideration of various aspects. Even if disclosure has been made truthfully the employer has the right to consider fitness and while doing so effect of conviction and background facts of case, nature of offence etc. have to be considered. Even if acquittal has been made, employer may consider nature of offence, whether acquittal is honourable or giving benefit of doubt on technical reasons and decline to appoint a person who is unfit or dubious character. In case employer comes to conclusion that conviction or ground of acquittal in criminal case would not affect the fitness for employment incumbent may be appointed or continued in service".
Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstance of the case, it is evident that in case acquittal has been directed giving benefit of doubt on technical reasons, employer has been granted a discretion to decline appointment of person who is unfit or of dubious character particularly in case employer comes to conclusion that the conviction or ground of acquittal would affect fitness for employment.
In the present case, the impugned order clearly indicates the ground for rejection that petitioner has not been acquitted honorably but on the ground of benefit of doubt and therefore he is unfit for employment particularly in view of paragraph 9 (a) of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
The aspect of employment is necessarily based on impeccable character of an applicant and trust reposed upon him by the employer. Petitioner had been charged with a heinous crime and has been acquitted giving him benefit of doubt only because the victim had passed away during trial.
From the reasons indicated in light of the judgment in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), it is evident that the ground taken in the impugned order for rejection of application for compassionate appointment is quite in terms of judgment indicated hereinabove.
Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
Parties to bear their own costs.
Order Date :- 18.8.2023
Renu/-
