Allahabad High Court
Sanjeev Kumar Sonkar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 22 September, 2023
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:61186
Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7055 of 2023
Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Sonkar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ishan Singh Popli,Ratnesh Chandra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.
2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 12.07.2023 passed by Superintendent of Police, Bahriach whereby petitioner's candidature and appointment on the post of Constable, Civil Police has been cancelled on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings.
3. It has been submitted that earlier petitioner had participated in selection for the post of Constable, Civil Police as a reserved candidate but thereafter challenge result dated 02.03.2020 in Writ Petition No.9901(S/S) of 2020 which was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 28.07.2021 directing opposite parties to consider his claim under the scheduled caste category quota and to pass appropriate orders in that regard. It is submitted that in pursuance of such directions petitioner's claim was found established and vide order dated 25.11.2021, petitioner was declared selected for the aforesaid post. However by means of impugned order, the offer of appointment has been cancelled on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings in Case Crime No.562 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC.
4. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the judgment and order dated 11.07.2023 passed in S. T. Case No.13447 of 2020 pertaining to the aforesaid case crime with the submission that petitioner has been acquitted in the aforesaid proceedings just a day before passing of the impugned order and therefore probably the opposite parties were not aware of the aforesaid acquittal due to which impugned order has been passed.
5. Learned State counsel has been provided instruction in this matter but not with regard to acquittal of petitioner.
6. Since all the relevant material is already on record, petition is being adjudicated at the admission stage itself.
7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, it is quite evident that impugned order has been passed on the ground of pendency of Criminal Proceedings. The date of impugned order is 12.07.2023 whereas petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal proceedings vide judgment and order dated 11.07.2023. Learned counsel for petitioner upon instructions submits that they do not have any instructions regarding any appeal having been filed against the order of acquittal. Judgment and order passed in criminal proceedings also indicate that petitioner's acquittal is honourable and not merely granting benefit of doubt. Clearly, opposite parties were unaware of petitioner's acquittal in criminal proceedings at the time of passing of impugned order.
8. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 12.07.2023 is quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to consider petitioner's case afresh in the light of judgment and order dated 11.07.2023 acquitting petitioner in the criminal proceedings.
9. Fresh decision by the opposite party shall be taken within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before concerned authority.
10. Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.
Order Date :- 22.9.2023
Subodh/-
