Ram Sundar Pal vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 8737 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ram Sundar Pal vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 8 April, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50051
 
Court No. - 49							Reserved
 
									   A.F.R.
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7119 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Sundar Pal
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Krishna Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
 

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the Superintendent of Police, Hathras dated 19.03.2023, cancelling his candidature for appointment as a Police Constable, a post for which he was selected after a recruitment held in accordance with rules, pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow. The petitioner has also sought consequential reliefs.

2. The Chairman, Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow, published an advertisement for recruitment of Police and PAC Constables on their website, called PRPB-1 (82)/15. The petitioner applied for the post of Police and PAC Constable (Male) in the direct recruitment of the year 2015, for which, he says, he was eligible. It would be utterly unnecessary to mention details of the petitioner's candidature for those are not in dispute or issue. The petitioner was selected and his name appeared in the merit list. He was issued a provisional admit card to appear in the physical efficiency test, scheduled to be held on 05.05.2016. He appeared in the physical efficiency test and declared successful. The petitioner was then called for character verification, medical examination and the verification of his Classes X and XII mark-sheets. He was directed to appear for the purpose on 14.06.2018 at the Police Lines, Etawah in the morning hours at 8 O' clock. The petitioner's candidature was accepted during the said verification and medical test. The selection being complete, the petitioner, along with other selected candidates, was allotted his district of posting. The petitioner was allotted District Hathras for his posting. Despite being allotted a district, the petitioner was not issued with an appointment letter. When the petitioner approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah, he was informed that his appointment had been withheld due to a criminal case pending against him, to wit, Case Crime No.564 of 2015, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the SC/ST Act'), Police Station Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah.

3. It is the petitioner's case that not only was he falsely implicated in the crime, but it was not within his knowledge that the case was pending against him. He was never arrested or summoned by the Police in connection with the crime, that was based on an incident dated 17.12.2015. The petitioner was served with a notice by the Police to appear in Court for the first time on 16.03.2016. This notice was issued by the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Etawah and required his presence on 17.03.2016 at 10.30 a.m. at the time of submission of the charge-sheet. The petitioner was tried vide Sessions Trial No.236 of 2016 and acquitted on 17.07.2018. After his acquittal, the petitioner submitted an application dated 25.07.2018 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah, bringing the fact to the S.S.P.'s knowledge that he had been acquitted after trial. When the petitioner was not called or a letter of appointment issued, he instituted Writ-A No.17523 of 2018 before this Court, seeking to enforce his right to appointment on the basis of selection to the post of a Constable.

4. This Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 18.08.2018 with a direction that the petitioner shall be at liberty to annex all materials in support of his claim and represent his grievance to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah, who will examine the claim in accordance with law, keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of Indian and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 and followed in the Bench decision of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 734 of 2016, State of U.P. and others v. Vijay Kumar and others, decided on 06.12.2016. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 04.09.2018 along with a certified copy of the order dated 18.08.2018 passed by this Court in Writ-A No.17523 of 2018 vide registered post, but this Court's order was not complied with. This compelled the petitioner to institute Contempt Application (Civil) No.2070 of 2020, Ram Sundar v. Dr. Raj Kumar Vishwakarma, U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board and another, where vide order dated 23.06.2020 notice was issued to the contemnors to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them.

5. It is the petitioner's case that when the petitioner was directed to submit his affidavit regarding verification of his character etc., the petitioner sought advice of his learned Counsel in Court, where he had been arraigned and the learned Counsel informed the petitioner that as he had been acquitted, no criminal case was pending against him. It is the petitioner's case that the learned Counsel, representing him in the criminal case, dictated the affidavit for being filed before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah. A copy of the affidavit dated 09.06.2018 is placed on record of the writ petition.

6. Upon receipt of notice of contempt issued by this Court, the petitioner's candidature was cancelled by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah by the order dated 25.02.2021. The order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah was questioned by the petitioner before this Court vide Writ-A No.4831 of 2021. During the course of hearing of the aforesaid writ petition, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah was directed to appear in person on 24.03.2021 before this Court. The S.S.P., Etawah, vide order dated 22.03.2021, proceeded to withdraw the order dated 25.02.2021, cancelling the petitioner's selection.

7. In consequence, this Court disposed of Writ-A No.4831 of 2021 vide order dated 24.03.2021, noting that the order impugned in that petition had been withdrawn and that the petitioner's case ought be considered in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra) vide paragraph Nos.38.5 and 38.6, which cast an obligation upon the Appointing Authority to consider the suitability of the candidate for induction in service, notwithstanding his arraignment in a criminal case, especially in view of the fact of his acquittal. This Court clarified that it was for the Appointing Authority to judge the petitioner's suitability by an independent evaluation and the Court had not expressed any opinion on the merits. The order dated 24.03.2021 passed by this Court was presented by the petitioner along with an application dated 27.03.2021 to the Superintendent of Police, Hathras by registered post. The Superintendent of Police, Hathras, according to the petitioner, by an order dated 02.06.2021, proceeded to reject the petitioner's claim without application of mind and without complying with the directions and remarks of this Court carried in the order dated 24.03.2021 passed in Writ-A No.4831 of 2021.

8. The petitioner, faced with a rejection of his candidature again, instituted Writ-A No.6576 of 2021 before this Court, which was heard and allowed vide judgment and order dated 19.12.2022, in terms of the following order:

"The contention of the Counsel for the petition is that mere suppression of the fact would not disqualify the petitioner from service as has been law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar vs Union of India; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 441 and the respondents are bound to consider the relevant facts including the effect of suppression on the services as sought by the incumbent, as such, the order impugned in view of the law laid down in the case of Pawan Kumar (Supra), I do not find that the order impugned is unsustainable.

Accordingly, the order impugned dated 02.06.2021 is set aside with directions to the respondents to pass fresh orders in the light of the judgment of Pawan Kumar's Case (Supra).

While passing the fresh order, the respondent shall categorically consider the effect that the petitioner has been acquitted and the effect of the said case.

The respondent no.4 shall pass the order within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

In view of above terms, the writ petition is allowed."

9. A certified copy of the order dated 19.12.2022 passed in Writ-A No.6576 of 2021 along with a copy of the judgment dated 02.05.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar v. Union of India and another, (2023) 12 SCC 317 were laid by the petitioner before the Superintendent of Police, Hathras annexed to his representation dated 26.12.2022. It is the petitioner's case that after acquittal in Sessions Trial No.236 of 2016 vide judgment and order dated 17.07.2018, the petitioner had brought the fact to the notice of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah vide his application dated 25.07.2018.

10. According to the petitioner, so far as the case under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (for short, 'the Goondas Act') is concerned, it was not within his knowledge at all. He says that even in the police report, that was submitted in the year 2018, there is no mention of it. The said fact, according to the petitioner, makes it evident that the case, said to be registered against the petitioner under the Goondas Act, was not within the respondents' knowledge as well. It was subsequently considered in compliance with the orders of this Court passed in Writ-A No.4831 of 2021.

11. It is also the petitioner's case that when he moved an application to seek information about the pending case under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act on 09.06.2021, invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, his application was referred to the Additional District Magistrate, Etawah. The Additional District Magistrate, Etawah has furnished information in 'question' and 'answer' form that Case Crime No.108 of 2016, under Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act, P.S. Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah, State v. Ram Sundar Pal, was not pending. The petitioner pleads that case, giving rise to Case Crime No.564 of 2015, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah, was a case of trivial nature, wherein the petitioner has been acquitted, albeit giving him the benefit of doubt. It is averred that the petitioner's case is fully covered by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar (supra). It is also pleaded that the impugned order has been passed disregarding the order of remand passed by this Court dated 19.12.2022 in Writ-A No.6576 of 2021 and is one rendered in breach of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh and Pawan Kumar. Much emphasis has been laid by the petitioner on paragraph No.38.4.1. of Avtar Singh to say that the principles in this case have been utterly violated while passing the impugned order.

12. Aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

13. A notice of motion was issued on 10.05.2023. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.2 on 13.07.2023, to which no rejoinder has been filed. A counter affidavit dated 25.07.2023 was filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4, but during the course of proceedings, it was discovered that the same was not traceable. Accordingly, a reconstructed copy of the said affidavit was accepted on record on 31.08.2024. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 13.09.2023. Pending admission on 13.08.2024, the parties having substantially exchanged affidavit, the petition was admitted to hearing, which proceeded on that day. The hearing was adjourned to 26.09.2024. The hearing was resumed on 24.10.224, after a nomination by the Chief Justice, there being a change of roster in the meantime. The hearing concluded on 24.10.2024 and judgment reserved.

14. Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ram Krishna Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Roopesh Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondent.

15. We have perused the impugned order and the respondents' stand in the counter affidavit as also the other circumstances relevant to a fair decision of the petitioner's claim to appointment by the respondents. There is no denying the fact that on 09.06.2018, the petitioner put in a notarized affidavit for the verification of his character, where he stated that no criminal case or matter has ever been registered against him nor any police investigation pending. He also said that he has never been arrested in any criminal case and that he has never been challaned by the Police in a crime. Admittedly, on 16.03.2016, the petitioner was served with a notice to remain present in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Etawah on 17.03.2016, at the time of submission of the charge-sheet against him in Case Crime No.564 of 2015, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah. Therefore, on 16.03.2016, the petitioner had acquired knowledge of the case registered against him and being investigated by the Police that had led to the then proposed filing of a charge-sheet against him. In course of time, the charge-sheet was filed, the petitioner tried and acquitted. Therefore, on the day, the petitioner filed the affidavit for the verification of his character dated 09.06.2018, he was very well cognizant of the fact that a criminal case had been registered against him, investigated and that he was still facing trial. The judgment of acquittal was delivered on 17.07.2018.

16. No doubt, the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the criminal case pending against him. The petitioner's explanation, that the learned Counsel, appearing for him in the criminal case, had advised him that since a judgment of acquittal had been entered, there was no case against him, is not acceptable. The judgment came on 17.07.2018, whereas the affidavit was filed on 09.06.2018. There is no way, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the criminal case could have told the petitioner that he had been acquitted on 09.06.2018, when the learned Counsel dictated the affidavit that the petitioner filed, as asserted in paragraph No.19 of the writ petition. Therefore, this is indeed a case where the petitioner suppressed from the respondents the fact that he was facing trial in a criminal case, after investigation by the Police.

17. The principles laid down in Avtar Singh do not universally and without exception forbid the consideration of a person's candidature, guilty of suppression or furnishing false information of involvement in a criminal case, at the time he makes his application for employment or at the time of verification of his character, post selection. The principles laid down in Avtar Singh are enumerated below:

"38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:

38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.

38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted:

38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.

38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.

38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.

38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.

38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.

38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.

38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.

38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.

38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."

18. The general rule is that there should be no suppression of information by the candidate as to conviction, acquittal, arrest or the pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering service. But, if information is suppressed about the involvement in a criminal case, what would be the impact thereof upon the candidature of a person, or so to speak, his right to appointment. It would depend on a variety of factors. The principles, that are summed up in paragraph No.38 of the report in Avtar Singh, are backed by elaborate reasons, which broadly frown upon suppression or furnishing of false information of involvement in a criminal case by a candidate, but does not make it an indefeasible ground, leading to rejection of candidature in all cases. No doubt, the principle in paragraph No.38.4 applies to a case, where suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case is given, where a conviction or acquittal has already happened, but it is not a mathematical formula where pending judgment, the same principles cannot be rationally extended. It is a well regarded principle that a judgment is to be understood for the principle that it lays down and never read like a statute. The principles in Avtar Singh give ample play for the exercise of discretion in the matter to the Appointing Authority. It makes provision for taking notice of the special circumstances of a case by the employer before passing an order of termination of service or cancellation of candidature for giving false information about the criminal case. This contingency is contemplated even in cases where judgment has not been delivered.

19. There is also provision in paragraph No.38.3 to take into consideration government orders/ instructions/ rules applicable to employees at the time of deciding, whether their candidature is liable to be cancelled on the ground of suppression of involvement in a criminal case etc. In cases, where there is suppression and a judgment of conviction or acquittal already there, cases of a trivial nature, conviction being recorded, have been held as ones not entitling the employer to cancel the candidature or appointment on the premise that if the petty offence had been disclosed, it would not have rendered the employee unfit for appointment to the post. The case of shouting slogans etc. at a young age has been mentioned as an illustration of the petty nature of a crime that does not disentitle. Paragraph Nos.38.4.3 speaks of the contingency if acquittal has already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or an offence, that is heinous, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given. In such cases, the employer has been given the freedom to consider all relevant facts, available as to antecedents before arriving at a decision whether to cancel an employee's candidature. These are more or less principles that have been paraphrased from the ones laid down in Avtar Singh.

20. Peeping behind all these principles, one cannot miss the fact that in case of suppressed information about the pendency of a criminal case, where a judgment had already been passed, whether of acquittal or conviction, or may be in a case where it is shortly afterwards passed, the first thing to be seen is if the offence, that has been charged against the employee, is of a petty nature or heinous. If it is heinous, still the employer may consider relevant facts as to antecedents of the employee before arriving at a decision.

21. Before proceeding further, it must be remarked that the heinous or the petty nature of a criminal case cannot always be determined on the basis of the sections of the statute, under which the offence is charged, though some provisions of the statute more or less serve as an indicia to the gravity of the offence. In some cases, it almost always points out to the offence being heinous, say an offence punishable under Section 302 or 376 of the Indian Penal Code. There are other offences, where the sections charged may indicate prima facie the nature of the offence to be not serious or laced with moral turpitude, always. The offences charged against the petitioner are those punishable under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.

22. In determining, if the offences charged against the petitioner were indeed heinous or petty, it was incumbent on the Superintendent of Police, Hathras, who passed the impugned order, to briefly look into the allegations and the evidence and then form his opinion. The Superintendent of Police has taken note of the fact that the acquittal is not honourable, but one based on benefit of doubt and a notice under Section 344 was issued to the informant of the case, Sajjan Singh for knowingly and willfully giving false evidence in Court. He has overlooked the fact that there was after all no evidence against the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police has also overlooked the fact that the notice for a prosecution on the charge of giving false and fabricated evidence in Court, obviously relates to the inculpatory part of the testimony given in the examination-in-chief by the informant and not the exculpatory part, that has come out during cross-examination. This matter ought have been probed and considered by the Superintendent of Police before judging the effect the judgment of acquittal on the rights of the petitioner to seek appointment.

23. After all, in the social milieu of the day, a hard earned government employment is often lost on account of frivolous cases, launched against aspirants, who are about to enter government service and this case, as a prima facie reading of the judgment would show, is set against the background of a panchayat election rivalry and all that happens in contemporary rural life, where there are assaults on political rivals and false charges galore. At the trial, there was no convincing testimony noticed by the learned Judge against the petitioner, as a reading of the judgment prima facie would show. The order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Hathras, declining to accept the petitioner's claim, does not show a careful consideration of the circumstances, leading to the petitioner's prosecution in the crime, alleging assault and abuse with caste suggestive words, all of which were not proven at the trial. What the Superintendent of Police ignored from consideration is the fact that the offence charged against the petitioner, that ended in acquittal, did not involve the commission of an offence by him or his co-accused, that would appear heinous in nature. The charges involved do not show that any serious injuries were inflicted.

24. In fact, at the trial, the injuries, whatever they were, were not proven by the witnesses, who disowned the event. The nature of the charge and evidence, and then the stance of witnesses during trial, seen in the context of a political rivalry in the petitioner's native village relating to panchayat elections, where the petitioner had just been selected for government service, has to be rationally and realistically understood. If one were to see the charge, nothing came out of it, but left the petitioner stripped of his hard earned government employment. Perhaps, that was the purpose of laying the charge against the petitioner and nothing more. The Superintendent of Police did not consider the charge and the evidence from this angle at all, which ought have been done. In order to do this, he was required to further probe the petitioner's background and his antecedents. If the petitioner was otherwise a respectable young man with no criminal antecedents, the complexion of the failed criminal case against him, might have had a different bearing upon his right to seek public employment. The Superintendent of Police did consider one more case against the petitioner, about which he said that it was suppressed too, and, later on, surfaced due to a fresh police character verification report, called on account of lapse of the time period of six months.

25. The other case found against the petitioner was said to be Case Crime No.108 of 2016, under Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act, P.S. Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah. It was reported by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah through his V.R. No.671 of 2021 dated 24.05.2021. This case too was said to have been suppressed by the petitioner at the time of his character verification done through his affidavit. Regarding this crime registered against the petitioner as another case deliberately suppressed, the petitioner's case was considered by the Superintendent of Police as one governed by paragraph No.38.7 of the guidelines laid down in Avtar Singh with regard to multiple pending cases, regarding which false information was given by a candidate. That is a principle, where multiple pending cases against a candidate, if not disclosed, entitles the employer to pass appropriate orders, cancelling his candidature or terminating his appointment. But, is it true for a fact or did the Superintendent of Police consider that indeed a crime under Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act was registered against the petitioner or could have been registered against him. We think not. Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act does not speak of any offence at all, but provides for externment of Goondas, as defined under the Goondas Act in proceedings to be taken before the District Magistrate.

26. Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act neither defines an offence nor prescribes a punishment for it. It provides for preventive proceedings to be taken by the District Magistrate against a person, who is a Goonda as defined under the Goondas Act, by externing him from the local limits of his jurisdiction or the district or districts contiguous, as may be specified in the order, or order such person to notify his movements or report himself to such authority as may be specified, or prohibit or restrict possession for use by the person proceeded with against of any article, as may be specified in the order, all until the expiry of six months. The provisions of Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act never contemplate a criminal offence at all. The only criminal offence provided under the Goondas Act is the one under Section 10, which is regarding contravention of orders passed under Sections 3, 4, 5 or 6. There is no such case against the petitioner of contravening any order of prohibition or externment made under the Goondas Act under Section 3 and a criminal offence registered against him under Section 10. If there were any doubt in this regard as to what were the kind of proceedings that the Superintendent of Police took into consideration as an 'offence' under Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act, one has to look into a report dated 02.07.2021, submitted by the Inspector In-charge, P.S. Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah, about this so called crime that the petitioner committed under Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act and registered at the said police station as Case Crime No.108 of 2016, to the Circle Officer, Jaswant Nagar, Etawah. The report, that the Inspector In-charge, P.S. Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah submitted to the Circle Officer, Jaswant Nagar, Etawah, was apparently submitted in answer to a demand under the Right to Information Act regarding the aforesaid crime. The report submitted by the Inspector In-charge, P.S. Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah, last mentioned, must be quoted for every word of it:

"रिपोर्ट थाना जसवन्तनगर जनपद इटावा

सेवा मे,

श्रीमान क्षेत्राधिकारी महोदय

जसवन्तनगर इटावा

विषयः पत्रांक- ज0सू0अ0 (261/23) के सन्दर्भ मे RTI-2005 के तहत आवेदक श्री रामसुंदर पाल पुत्र श्री प्रीतम पाल निवासी ग्राम कैस्त थाना जसवन्तनगर इटावा को सूचना देने विषयक।

महोदय,

आवेदक उपरोक्त द्वारा चाही गयी प्रस्तरवार सूचना निम्नवत है-

1- बिन्दु संख्या 1 मे आवेदक उपरोक्त द्वारा मु0अ0सं0 108/2016 अन्तर्गत धारा 3 (1) गुण्डा अधि0 1970 अभियुक्त / प्रार्थी का चालानी रिपोर्ट की संलग्न प्रतिलिपि चाही गयी है उक्त बिन्दु की सूचना के क्रम मे अवगत कराना है कि थाना हाजा अभिलेख जीडी / डाक बही (वर्ष 2016) का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि थाना हाजा पर दिनांक 31.03.2016 को मु0अ0सं0 108/2016 धारा 3(1) गुण्डा अधि0 वादी तत्कालीन SHO श्री दीपक दुबे द्वारा आवेदक उपरोक्त के विरुद्ध पंजीकृत कराया था जिसकी रिपोर्ट चालानी तत्कालीन डाक मुंशी का0 996 देव प्रकाश PNO- 112034199 मो0नं0- 9125560463 व तत्कालीन डाक रनर / पैरवी का0 404 तुलाराम PN0- 0872240173 मो0न0- 9412537431 द्वारा दिनांक 03.04.2016 को डाक बही मे चढाकर वाचक कार्यालय श्रीमान वरिष्ठ पुलिस अधीक्षक महोदय इटावा (R/SSP) कार्यालय में प्रेषित की गयी है । जो कि डाक बही मे रिसीव नही हुई है। पुनः मु0अ0सं0 उपरोक्त से सम्बन्धित रिपोर्ट चालानी दिनांक 29.04.2016 को तत्कालीन डाक मुंशी का0 996 देव प्रकाश उपरोक्त व डाक रनर / पैरवी का0 404 तुलाराम उपरोक्त व का0 817 मौजीराम PNO-822390378 मो0नं0- 9450310224 द्वारा डाक बही मे चढाकर वाचक के कार्यालय श्रीमान वरिष्ठ पुलिस अधीक्षक महोदय इटावा (R/SSP) कार्यालय मे प्रेषित की गयी है। जो कि डाक बही में रिसीव नही हुई है। मुकदमा उपरोक्त से सम्बन्धित रिपोर्ट चालानी पुनः एक बार दिनांक 23.06.2016 को तत्कालीन डाक मुंशी का0 299 मुकेश कुमार PNO- 942240032 मो0नं0-08528639602व तत्कालीन डाक रनर/पैरवी का0 404 तुलाराम उपरोक्त व का0 817 मौजीराम द्वारा डाक बही मे चढाकर वाचक के कार्यालय श्रीमान वरिष्ठ पुलिस अधीक्षक महोदय इटावा (R/SSP) कार्यालय मे प्रेषित की गयी है। जो कि डाक बही मे रिसीव नही हुई है। उपरोक्त सभी दिनांको से सम्बन्धित डाक बही की छायाप्रतियां संलग्न है।

2- बिंन्दु संख्या 2 मे आवेदक द्वारा मु0अ0सं0 108/2016 अन्तर्गत धारा 3 (1) गुण्डा अधि0 1970 अभियुक्त/प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध न्यायालय अपर जिलाधिकारी महोदय के यहां थाना जसवन्तनगर द्वारा भेजा गया आरो पत्र / अन्तिम रिपोर्ट की सत्य प्रतिलिपि चाही गयी है उक्त बिन्दु के क्रम मे अवगत कराना है कि आदान प्रदान डाक बही (वर्ष 2016) का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि मु0अ0सं0 उपरोक्त से सम्बन्धित रिपोर्ट चालानी प्रेषित की गयी है । जिसका बिन्दु संख्या 1 मे विस्तृत वर्णन किया गया है । इसके अतिरिक्त उक्त से सम्बन्धित अन्य पारितोष सम्बन्धित कार्यालय न्यायालय अपर जिलाधिकारी महोदय इटावा से प्राप्त कर सकते है।

3- बिन्दु संख्या 3 मे आवेदक उपरोक्त द्वारा मु0अ0सं0 108/2016 अन्तर्गत धारा 3 (1) गुण्डा अधि0 1970 न्यायालय अपर जिला अधिकारी इटावा के यहां प्रचलित वाद की वास्तविक स्थिति / अन्तिम निर्णय की सत्य प्रतिलिपि चाही गयी है, उक्त बिन्दु का सम्बन्ध मा0 न्यायालय अपर जिलाधिकारी महोदय इटावा से है अतएव सम्बन्धित उक्त न्यायालय से पारितोष प्राप्त करने की कृपा करे।

श्रीमान जी रिपोर्ट सादर अवलोकनार्थ प्रेषित है।

ह0 अपठित

प्रभारी निरीक्षक

थाना जसवन्तनगर

जनपद इटावा"

27. The report says that a perusal of the G.D./ Dak Bahi for the year 2016 reveals that on 31.03.2016, Crime No.108 of 2016, under Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act was got registered by the former Station House Officer, Deepak Dubey against the petitioner, where the report challani was sent by the former Dak Munshi Constable 996, Dev Prakash and the former Dak Runner/ Pairavi Constable 404, Tularam on 03.04.2016, after entering it in the Dak Bahi, to the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah. It was not received in the S.S.P.'s Dak Bahi. A report challani relating to the said crime was sent again on 29.04.2016 by the former Dak Munshi, Dev Prakash and Dak Runner, Tularam, besides Constable, Mauji Ram, after entering it in the Dak Bahi, to the S.S.P., Etawah. But, it was not received in the Dak Bahi, which refers to the S.S.P.'s Dak Bahi obviously. Another abortive attempt was made, according to this report, on 23.06.2016 by the police station to send the report challani to the S.S.P. through their Dak, which too was not received in the S.S.P.'s office.

28. It is next said in the report that the petitioner, in his application under the R.T.I. Act vide Information No.2, has asked for the details of the charge-sheet/ final report sent to the Court of the Additional District Magistrate in relation to Crime No.108 of 2016, under Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act, but details about the report challani and its dispatch have already been given. In answer to Information No.1 of the RTI Application, it was said that other relevant information can be secured from the office of the Additional District Magistrate, Etawah. It was finally said in the report that in answer to the last information sought under the Right to Information Act, where the petitioner had sought to know the current status of the case or applied for a certified copy of the final judgment in the case arising out of Crime No.108 of 2016, under Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act, all that can be said in answer, is that the matter relates to the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Etawah and the relevant information can be secured from that Court.

29. There is on record an information in 'question' and 'answer' form, furnished by the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Etawah dated 22.06.2021, where the question reads:

"'प्रश्न

1- क्या मु0अ0सं0 108/16 थाना - जसवन्तनगर अन्तर्गत धारा 3 (1) उ0प्र0 गुण्डा नियंत्रण अधि0 राज्य बनाम रामसुन्दर पाल जिला इटावा विचारणीय है या नहीं"

30. The answer to this question in the right hand column is:

"'उत्त्तर

श्रीमानजी

नहीं।"

31. For one, this case, bearing Case Crime No.108 of 2016, under Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act, P.S. Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah, appears to be a ghost case, of which there is no tangible evidence available with anyone, except elusive answers. Assuming that this case was registered at the Police Station Jaswant Nagar, one is left to wonder as to how the S.S.P. thought that a crime could be registered under Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act. The very idea of a crime being registered under the aforesaid provision, a criminal case investigated and the petitioner prosecuted under Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act, is something so absurd that no one in the S.S.P.'s shoes could have spared a serious thought to it. We have said earlier that the provisions under Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act do not contemplate any crime or a criminal offence by any stretch of imagination, and, therefore, to think and act, even if there were a police report, on the basis that a crime was registered against the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act, is downright perversity of reasoning, vitiating the impugned order. This would leave the impugned order and the Superintendent of Police, Hathras, who passed it with just Case Crime No.564 of 2015, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah, to consider. We have already spoken how fallaciously the effect of the said criminal case, that was indeed not disclosed by the petitioner, has been considered by the Superintendent of Police, Hathras.

32. At this juncture, dwelling further on how the effect of Case Crime No.564 of 2015 was to be considered on the petitioner's candidature, it must be remarked that Government Order dated 28.04.1958 lays down the mode and procedure for verification of a candidate's character and his suitability for public employment in the service of the Government of U.P. The relevant part of the Government Order dated 28.04.1958 provides:

"3. (a) Every direct recruit to any service under the Uttar Pradesh Government will be required to produce:

(i) A certificate of conduct and character from the head of the educational institution where he last studied (if he went to such an institution).

(ii) Certificates of character from two persons. The appointing authority will lay down requirements as to kind of persons from whom it desires these certificates.

b) In cases of doubt, the appointing authority may either ask for further references, or may refer the case to the District Magistrate concerned. The District Magistrate may then make further enquiries as he considers necessary.

Note(a) A conviction need not of itself involve the refusal of a certificate of good character. The circumstances of the conviction should be taken into account and if they involve on moral turpitude or association with crimes of violence or with a movement which has its object to overthrow by violent means of Government as by law now established in free India the mere conviction need not be regarded as disqualification. (Conviction of a person during his childhood should not necessarily operate as a bar to his entering Government service. The entire circumstances in which his conviction was recorded as well as the circumstances in which he is now placed should be taken into consideration. If he has completely reformed himself on attaining the age of understanding and discretion, mere conviction in childhood should not operate as a bar to his entering Government service).

(b) While no person should be considered unfit for appointment solely because of his political opinions, care should be taken not to employ persons who are likely to be disloyal and to abuse the confidence placed in them by virtue of their appointment. Ordinarily, persons who are actively engaged in subversive activities including members of any organization the avowed object of which is to change the existing order of society by violent means should be considered unfit for appointment under Government. Participation in such activities at any time after attaining the age of 21 years and within three years of the date of enquiry should be considered as evidence that the person is still actively engaged in such activities unless in the interval there is positive evidence of change of attitude.

(c) Persons dismissed by the Central Government or by a State Government will also be deemed to be unfit for appointment to any service under this Government.

2(d) In the case of direct recruits to the State Services under the Uttar Pradesh Government includes requiring the candidates to submit the certificates mentioned in paragraph 3 (a) above. The appointing authority shall refer all cases simultaneously to Deputy Inspector General of Police, intelligence and the District Magistrate (of the home district and of the district(s) where the candidate has resided for more than a year within five years of the date of the inquiry) giving full particulars about the candidate. The District Magistrate shall get the reports in respect of the candidates from the Superintendent of Police who will consult District Police Records and records of the Local Intelligence Unit. The District Police or the District Intelligence Unit shall not make any enquiries on the spot, but shall report from their records whether there is anything against the candidate, but if in any specific case the District Magistrate at the instance of the appointing authority ask for an enquiry on the spot the Local Police or the Local Intelligence Units will do so and report the result to him. The District Magistrate shall then reports his own views to the appointing authority. Where the District Police or the Local Intelligence Units report adversely about a candidate the District Magistrate may give the candidate a hearing before sending his report.

(e) In the case of direct recruits (who are lower in rank than that of a State Service Officer) of:

(i) the police (including ministerial staff of Police Officers).

(ii) the Secretariat.

(iii) the staff employed in the government factories,

(iv) power houses and dams.

besides requiring the candidates to submit the certificates mentioned in paragraph 3 (a) above, the appointing authorities shall refer all cases simultaneously to the Deputy Inspector General, C.I.D. and the District Superintendent of Police (of the home district and of the district(s) where the candidate has resided for more than a year within five year of the date of the inquiry) giving full particulars about the candidate. The Superintendents of Police will send his report direct to the appointing authority if there is nothing adverse against the candidate. In cases where the report is unfavourable the Superintendent of Police will forward it to the District Magistrate who will send for the candidate concerned, give him a hearing and then, form his own opinion. All the necessary papers (the Superintendent of Police's report the candidate's statement and the District Magistrate's finding) will there after be sent to the appointing authority.

4. It will be seen that in cases of direct recruit to services other than those mentioned in paragraphs 3 (c) and 3 (d) above, verification shall not be necessary as a matter of routine except in cases of doubt when the procedure mentioned in paragraph 3 (b) shall be followed.

5. In the case of a candidate for services mentioned in paragraphs 3 (c) and 3 (d) above-

(i) if at the time of enquiry the candidate is residing in a locality situated outside Uttar Pradesh or if he has resided in such a locality at any time within five years of the date of enquiry for a period of one year or more it shall be the duty of the deputy Inspector General, C. I. D. to consult also the C. I. D. D. of the State concerned in which the locality is situated before making his verification report.

(ii) if the candidate was residing before partition in area now comprising Pakistan the Deputy Inspector General, C. I. D. shall also make a reference to the Director of Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, in addition to the usual enquires as indicated above.

6. It has also been observed that where the District Magistrates are required to send the attestation forms they sometimes do not sign the forms themselves, Government consider it very desirable that the attestation forms should invariably be signed by the District Magistrates them selves in all such cases."

33. I had occasion to consider the effect of the Government Order dated 28.04.1958 on the right of a candidate to appointment in government service, against whom a criminal case had been registered, in Shivam Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2024 (11) ADJ 749, where I held:

"14. A perusal of the Government Order dated 28.04.1958 would show that the District Magistrate was entrusted with the process of character verification in order to secure a balanced opinion about the suitability of a candidate for government service based on all relevant facts. It was never the employment policy of the State to exclude from consideration for public employment every person against whom a crime had been registered. Of course, a heinous and serious crime involving moral turpitude and some proceeding showing involvement would always be a criterion to exclude a candidate unless subsequent proceedings demonstrate him/her to be utterly innocent and not involved at all. But a host of other offences, trivial or not so trivial, or cases of utter false accusation, where nothing turned out against a person, would have to be gauged by the District Magistrate for the purpose of verifying a candidate's character and suitability for employment under the State. If this were not the policy of the State, there was no need for an elaborate provision where the Collector, the Superintendent of Police and in certain cases, the CID, have to be involved before a conclusion was reached, if a candidate is suitable for public employment, registration of a crime notwithstanding."

34. It is true that Shivam Yadav (supra) was a case, where the petitioner could legitimately say that he was not aware of the crime registered against him when he said in his notarized affidavit that no criminal case was there affecting him. But, the procedure laid down in the Government Order dated 28.04.1958 applies equally to a man, who has suppressed information about the pendency of a criminal case and one who was not aware at all. The difference would come by on parameters, if the offence was heinous, the nature of the petitioner's involvement, the gravity of the crime, and above all, the over all character and background of the candidate. It is to be holistically seen, except in cases of heinous offences, if the petitioner was truly not involved in the crime, after considering the facts and evidence appearing against him. The impression with the respondents Authorities that for every criminal case registered against a candidate and every criminal case that he does not disclose, he is to be deprived of his hard earned employment, is based on utter misconception. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644. The facts in Sandeep Kumar (supra), as described by their Lordships, read:

"2. The respondent herein, Sandeep Kumar applied for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in 1999. In the application form it was printed:

"12(a) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a court of law for any offence, debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination/selection or debarred from any examination, rusticated by any university or any other education authority/institution."

Against that column the respondent wrote: "No".

3. It is alleged that this is a false statement made by the respondent because he and some of his family members were involved in a criminal case being FIR No. 362 under Sections 325/34 IPC. This case was admittedly compromised on 18-1-1998 and the respondent and his family members were acquitted on 18-1-1998.

4. In response to the advertisement issued in January 1999 for filling up of certain posts of Head Constables (Ministerial), the respondent applied on 24-2-1999 but did not mention in his application form that he was involved in the aforesaid criminal case. The respondent qualified in all the tests for selection to the post of temporary Head Constable (Ministerial). On 3-4-2001 he filled the attestation form wherein for the first time he disclosed that he had been involved in a criminal case with his tenant which, later on, had been compromised in 1998 and he had been acquitted.

5. On 2-8-2001 a show-cause notice was issued to him asking the respondent to show cause why his candidature for the post should not be cancelled because he had concealed the fact of his involvement in the aforesaid criminal case and had made a wrong statement in his application form. The respondent submitted his reply on 17-8-2001 and an additional reply but the authorities were not satisfied with the same and on 29-5-2003 cancelled his candidature."

35. Upon these facts, it was held in Sandeep Kumar:

"8. We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.

11. As already observed above, youth often commits indiscretions, which are often condoned.

12. It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Sections 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter."

36. Another relevant authority in point is Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, (2011) 14 SCC 709. The facts in Ram Kumar (supra), as these appear in the report of their Lordships' judgment, read:

"2. The facts very briefly are that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the State Government of U.P. on 19-11-2006, the appellant applied for the post of Constable and he submitted an affidavit dated 12-6-2006 to the recruiting authority in the pro forma of verification roll. In the affidavit dated 12-6-2006, he made various statements required for the purpose of recruitment and in Para 4 of the affidavit he stated that no criminal case was registered against him. He was selected and appointed as a male constable and deputed for training.

3. Thereafter, Jaswant Nagar Police Station, District Etawah, submitted a report dated 15-1-2007 stating that Criminal Case No. 275 of 2001 under Sections 324/323/504 IPC was registered against the appellant and thereafter the criminal case was disposed of by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah on 18-7-2002 and the appellant was acquitted by the court. Along with this report, a copy of the order dated 18-7-2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was also enclosed.

4. The report dated 15-1-2007 of Jaswant Nagar Police Station, District Etawah, was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. By order dated 8-8-2007, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, cancelled the order of selection of the appellant on the ground that he had submitted an affidavit stating wrong facts and concealing correct facts and his selection was irregular and illegal.

5. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 40674 of 2007 under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Allahabad High Court but the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by his order dated 30-8-2007 [ WP (C) No. 40674 of 2007, order dated 30-8-2007 (All)] . The learned Single Judge held that since the appellant had furnished false information in his affidavit in the pro forma verification roll, his case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav [(2003) 3 SCC 437 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 306] and that he was rightly terminated from service without any inquiry. The appellant challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in Special Appeal No. 924 of 2009 but the Division Bench of the High Court did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the same by the impugned order dated 31-8-2009 [ Special Appeal (Defective) No. 924 of 2009, order dated 31-8-2009 (All)]."

37. Upon these facts, it was held in Ram Kumar:

"9. We have carefully read the Government Order dated 28-4-1958 on the subject "Verification of the character and antecedents of government servants before their first appointment" and it is stated in the government order that the Governor has been pleased to lay down the following instructions in supersession of all the previous orders:

"The rule regarding character of candidate for appointment under the State Government shall continue to be as follows:

The character of a candidate for direct appointment must be such as to render him suitable in all respects for employment in the service or post to which he is to be appointed. It would be the duty of the appointing authority to satisfy itself on this point."

10. It will be clear from the aforesaid instructions issued by the Governor that the object of the verification of the character and antecedents of government servants before their first appointment is to ensure that the character of a government servant for a direct recruitment is such as to render him suitable in all respects for employment in the service or post to which he is to be appointed and it would be a duty of the appointing authority to satisfy itself on this point.

11. In the facts of the present case, we find that though Criminal Case No. 275 of 2001 under Sections 324/323/504 IPC had been registered against the appellant at Jaswant Nagar Police Station, District Etawah, admittedly the appellant had been acquitted by order dated 18-7-2002 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah.

12. On a reading of the order dated 18-7-2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate it would show that the sole witness examined before the court, PW 1, Mr Akhilesh Kumar, had deposed before the court that on 2-12-2000 at 4.00 p.m. children were quarrelling and at that time the appellant, Shailendra and Ajay Kumar amongst other neighbours had reached there and someone from the crowd hurled abuses and in the scuffle Akhilesh Kumar got injured when he fell and his head hit a brick platform and that he was not beaten by the accused persons by any sharp weapon. In the absence of any other witness against the appellant, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 323/34/504 IPC. On these facts, it was not at all possible for the appointing authority to take a view that the appellant was not suitable for appointment to the post of a police constable.

13. The order dated 18-7-2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had been sent along with the report dated 15-1-2007 of Jaswant Nagar Police Station to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, but it appears from the order dated 8-8-2007 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, that he has not gone into the question as to whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to service or to the post of constable in which he was appointed and he has only held that the selection of the appellant was illegal and irregular because he did not furnish in his affidavit in the pro forma of verification roll that a criminal case has been registered against him.

14. As has been stated in the instructions in the Government Order dated 28-4-1958, it was the duty of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, as the appointing authority, to satisfy himself on the point as to whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of a constable, with reference to the nature of suppression and nature of the criminal case. Instead of considering whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of male constable, the appointing authority has mechanically held that his selection was irregular and illegal because the appellant had furnished an affidavit stating the facts incorrectly at the time of recruitment."

38. A reading of the principles in Ram Kumar would show that the Court went into the evidence appearing against the appellant and what was his role in the crime in order to find out, whether he was suitable for appointment to the post of a Constable in the Police. Ram Kumar was a case, where too information about the criminal case was suppressed and in paragraph No.14 of the report, it has been emphasized that the instructions carried in the Government Order dated 28.04.1958 made it the duty of the Senior Superintendent of Police to satisfy himself as to the suitability of the appellant in that case for appointment to the post of a Constable, bearing in mind the nature of suppression and the nature of the criminal case. The Court frowned upon a mechanical rejection of the appellant's candidature on account of his involvement in a crime and furnishing false information on affidavit.

39. No doubt, the decisions in Sandeep Kumar and Ram Kumar have in the foreground the later decision in Avtar Singh, which has assimilated and summarized principles, but there is no departure or dissent from the rules adumbrated in Sandeep Kumar and Ram Kumar. A careful look at the record of this case would show that in adherence to the procedure of seeking the District Magistrate's opinion for suitability of the petitioner's appointment, his case too was referred to the District Magistrate. And, the District Magistrate, upon a consideration of the circumstances, appears to have favoured the petitioner for appointment in government service as a Police Constable. This fact is evident upon a perusal of a memo, bearing No. Bha-38/2017 dated April 18th, 2021, addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah by the Superintendent of Police, Hathras. The relevant part of this letter reads:

"उपरोक्त सम्बन्ध मे अवगत कराना है कि अभ्यर्थी अनुक्रमांक 00248372 राम सुन्दर पाल पुत्र श्री प्रीतम सिंह पाल निवासी ग्राम कैस्त, थाना जसवन्तनगर जनपद इटावा के विरूद्ध थाना जसवन्तनगर जनपद इटावा पर म्०अ०सं० 564 / 2015 धारा 147/ 452 / 323 /504/506 भादवि व 3 ( 1 ) एससी / एसटी पंजीकृत अभियोग मे जिलाधिकारी जनपद इटावा ने अपने पत्र संख्या 864/ ए०जे०ए० - चरित्र सत्यापन / 2018 दिनांक 01-12-2018] कं अभिमत मे अभ्यर्थी के विरूद्ध पंजीकृत मुकदमा उपरोक्त मे मा० न्यायालय विशेष न्यायाधाश एससीएसटी एक्ट-इटावा के निर्णय दिनाक 17-07-2018 मे अभ्यर्थी रामसुन्दर पाल का आरोप से दोषमुक्त कर दिये जाने के अनुपालन मे अभ्यर्थी को पुलिस आरक्षी के पद पर भर्ती हेतु आपात्त नहीं है। अभ्यर्थी के सम्बन्ध मे कराया गया चरित्र सत्यापन आख्या 06 माह से अधिक गया है। जो काल बाधित की श्रेणी में आता है। जिसके फलस्वरूप अभ्यर्थी का पुनः चरित्र सत्यापन कराया जाना आवश्यक है। जिससे स्पष्ट हो सके कि अभ्यर्थी के विरूद्ध किसी प्रकार का कोई अभियोग आदि पंजीकृत तो नही हुआ है।"

(emphasis by Court)

40. The District Magistrate, upon a consideration of the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge on 17.07.2018, examined the petitioner's case in accordance with the Government dated 28.04.1958 and opined that he had no objection to the petitioner's appointment as a Constable in the Police. This decisive opinion of the District Magistrate, Etawah was not at all taken into consideration by the Superintendent of Police, Hathras while passing the impugned order. This further vitiates the impugned order for non-consideration of relevant material before arriving at his decision not to appoint the petitioner.

41. At the tail-end of his submissions, Mr. Roopesh Tiwari, learned Standing, has referred to Case Crime No.63 of 2021, under Sections 420, 199 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Etawah, which has been registered against the petitioner on 23.02.2023 on orders of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah for his act in misrepresenting in his character verification affidavit that there was no crime registered against him with the Police. Mr. Tiwari submits that this is an additional crime registered against the petitioner, making it a case of multiple criminal cases being there against him, inviting immediate cancellation of his candidature under paragraph No.38.7 of the report in Avtar Singh. We do not agree.

42. Case Crime No.63 of 2021 has been registered under orders of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah dated 22.02.2021 on 23.02.2021, acting on some circular of the Police Headquarters for the petitioner's act of alleged deliberate suppression of the criminal case registered against him at the time of furnishing his affidavit relating to character verification in the process of recruitment as a Police Constable. This case does not find mention or consideration for obvious reasons in the order impugned dated 19.03.2023. This was not a case pending against the petitioner when he furnished his affidavit dated 09.06.2018, during the process of character verification for recruitment to the Police. This being not a material that was considered by the Superintendent of Police, Hathras while passing the impugned order, it cannot be looked into by this Court in support of the order impugned, as it is well settled for a proposition of the law that reasons in the order impugned cannot be supplemented through facts or materials furnished on affidavit during the hearing of a writ petition, challenging the validity of the order.

43. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order, amongst other things, is clearly vitiated for the following reasons:

(i) Non-consideration of the District Magistrate's opinion carried in his letter No.864/ AJA-Charitra Satyapan/2018 dated 01.12.2018, furnished in terms of the Government Order dated 28.04.1958, which says that the District Magistrate has no objection to the petitioner's appointment after a review of material;

(ii) Consideration of irrelevant material, being Case Crime No.108 of 2016, under Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act, P.S. Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah, which under the law could never have been registered as a case crime and investigated;

(iii) There being utter absence of material to show that any proceedings under Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act for externment etc. were taken against the petitioner or orders made by the Collector or the Additional Collector;

(iv) The Superintendent of Police, Hathras proceeding to pass the order impugned, on the basis of an error apparent, that there were multiple criminal cases registered against the petitioner in accordance with paragraph No.38.7 of the report in Avtar Singh, whereas his case was one of a solitary criminal case;

(v) The Superintendent of Police, Hathras committing a manifest illegality in proceeding to cancel the petitioner's candidature on the sole ground of suppression of the criminal case registered against him, without adverting to the fact, if in substance the offence was indeed trivial or the role assigned and the evidence appearing against the petitioner marginal and trivial, which did not make him unfit for appointment;

(vi) The failure of the Superintendent of Police, Hathras to take into consider after the nature of the accusation, the evidence appearing against the petitioner at the trial, the background in which the petitioner came to be implicated where there was some panchayat election rivalry etc. involved between parties, the role assigned to the petitioner in the offence, the gravity of the crime vis-a-vis the petitioner.

44. All these matters required careful consideration by the Superintendent of Police, together with the District Magistrate's report, to arrive at a conclusion if the petitioner was fit or unfit for public employment, which the Superintendent of Police, Hathras did not do in the present case. He has passed the order impugned mechanically and without application of mind to all these relevant facts and materials.

45. For all these fallacies, the impugned order has to perish and the matter sent back to the Superintendent of Police, Hathras for the making of fresh orders in accordance with law and the guidance in this judgment. We would add that in judging the suitability of the petitioner for appointment, the Superintendent of Police, Hathras will bear in mind and look to telltale circumstances regarding the crime, in which the petitioner was implicated and now acquitted, if it was a typical case of service related implication by natives of the village, as the petitioner had staked his candidature for Police Service. One of the things that would have to be seen and borne in mind by the Superintendent of Police, is the general reputation of the petitioner in order to find out whether he was a person with criminal propensities or a man belonging to the main stream of life. This we say particularly because except for Case Crime No.564 of 2015, that was registered about the time relating to his recruitment, no criminal history of the petitioner showing him as a wayward man, has surfaced during a keen search of his background.

46. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.03.2023 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Hathras is hereby quashed. A mandamus is issued to the Superintendent of Police, Hathras to re-consider the petitioner's case for appointment as a Police Constable on the foot of the selections held in furtherance of Advertisement No. PRPB-1 (82)/15, bearing in mind the guidance in this judgment. Since, it is a very old matter, the necessary order shall be passed by the Superintendent of Police, Hathras within a period of four weeks of receipt of a copy of this order and the result communicated to the petitioner.

47. There shall be no order as to costs.

48. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the Superintendent of Police, Hathras by the Registrar (Compliance).

Order Date :- 08.4.2025

Anoop

(J.J. Munir)

Judge