Aman Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 9701 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Aman Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 25 April, 2025

Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra

Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64565-DB
 
Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 698 of 2022
 
Appellant :- Aman Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Shivam Yadav,Surya Narayan Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
 

Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.

1. The appellant has been selected for appointment to the post of Constable in Uttar Pradesh Police on 8.11.2018. Though he has cleared the medical test etc. and District has also been allotted to him, yet he has been denied issuance of appointment only on account of his implication in the Case Crime No. 237 of 2019. The F.I.R. is under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 336, 452 & 457 of IPC. The F.I.R. has been perused by us wherein four persons are named while five others are shown as unknown. Ultimately, charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter where the appellant is also named. All the offences alleged against the appellant specify sentence of below seven years. The appellant has duly informed the authorities about the F.I.R. lodged against him. The Superintendent of Police, however, has rejected the appellant's claim for appointment vide order dated 16.6.2021. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed the writ petition which has been dismissed. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Methu Meda (2022) 1 SCC 1 to nonsuit the appellant. The learned Single Judge has also observed that considering the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, the charges cannot be said to be trivial in nature. In view of these observations, the writ petition has been dismissed.

2. In the present Special Appeal, this Court on previous occasion passed following order :

"Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

In Re: Delay Condonation Application

By this delay condonation application, the appellant has prayed for condonation of 109 days' delay in filing the intra-court appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.8320 of 2021.

Considering the explanation offered in the affidavit, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

The delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Office shall assign a regular number to the appeal.

Order on Appeal

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that to reject the candidature of the appellant, who was successful in the recruitment process, the respondents have placed reliance on the provisions of the 2015 Rules and Government Order dated 28.4.1958. In so far as 2015 Rules are concerned, Rules 11 and 16 thereof only speak of verification of character before offering appellant. It lays no guidelines as to in what circumstances appointment is to be denied on mere pendency of a case. In so far as Government Order of 1958 is concerned, it provides that in cases of doubt, the appointing authority may either ask for further references or may refer the case to the District Magistrate concerned who may make inquiries as he considers necessary. It is stated that the "note" in the said government order cautions the authority by providing that a conviction need not of itself entails refusal of a certificate of good character. Rather, the circumstances of the conviction should be taken into account.

It is submitted that in this case, firstly, there is no conviction and, secondly, there is no suppression of fact therefore, there ought to have been an independent assessment regarding the character of the petitioner for the purposes of taking a decision with regard to denial of appointment.

The matter requires consideration.

The learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of Respondents 1 to 6. He prays for and is allowed three weeks' time to file counter affidavit of a responsible officer authorized to take decisions on character verification reports.

The counter affidavit shall disclose whether the respondents, as a matter of principle, on mere pendency of a criminal case, deny appointment to a selected candidate or they take an informed decision after calling for reports from various sources with regard to the character of the applicant. If there is any government order or circulars operating in the field, the same shall be enclosed along with counter affidavit.

List this case on 6.12.2022"

3. We have heard Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and have perused the materials on record.

4. It is undisputed that the implication of appellant has surfaced much after he got selected for appointment to the post of Constable. The F.I.R., in which he has been implicated is lodged by a neighbour. It is the case of the appellant that had he been involved in the matter, there was no reason as to why he would not be named when the informant is the neighbour and is well known to the appellant. It is also contended that during the course of investigation, no material has been collected so as to specifically implicate the appellant and merely on account of routine implication due to village enmity, the candidature of the appellant ought not to have been discarded.

5. Having examined the materials on record, we find that the appellant though is implicated in the aforesaid criminal case but he has clearly disclosed this fact to the authorities. There is no allegation of any suppression or misrepresentation on his part. The contention of the appellant that he has been falsely implicated in the matter and that charges otherwise are not grave or serious so as to disentitle him to public appointment is a matter which was required to be considered in view of the observation made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471. We find that there is no consideration of appellant's candidature in terms of the parameters laid down in paragraph 38 of the judgment in Avtar Singh (Supra).

6. The appellant's plea that he has been falsely implicated due to village enmity inasmuch as he was not initially named in the F.I.R. lodged by his neighbour and that no credible evidence otherwise exists against him would thus require examination. The authority concerned has not examined the claim of the petitioner with reference to the applicable law but has merely referred to the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015 so as to reject his candidature. We also find that the learned Single Judge has rejected the claim by relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Methu Meda (Supra) wherein the Court in paragraph 10 has observed as under :

"11. While addressing the question, as argued the meaning of expression 'acquittal' is required to be looked into. The expressions 'honourable acquittal', 'acquitted of blame' and 'fully acquitted' are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, 1860. It has been developed by judicial pronouncements. In the case of State of Assam & Another vs. Raghava Rajgopalachari, (1972) 7 SLR 44, the effect of the word 'honourably acquitted' has been considered in the context of the Assam Fundament Rules (FR) 54 (a) for entitlement of full pay and allowance if the employee is not dismissed. The Court has referred the judgment of Robert Stuart Wauchope vs. Emperor reported in (1934) 61 ILR Cal. 168, in the context of expression 'honourably acquitted', Lord Williams, J. observed as thus:

"The expression "honourably acquitted" is one which is unknown to courts of justice. Apparently it is a form of order used in courts martial and other extra judicial tribunals. We said in our judgment that we accepted the explanation given by the Appellant believed it to be true and considered that it ought to have been accepted by the Government authorities and by the magistrate. Further we decided that the Appellant had not misappropriated the monies referred to in the charge. It is thus clear that the effect of our judgment was that the Appellant was acquitted as fully and completely as it was possible for him to be acquitted. Presumably, this is equivalent to what Government authorities term "honourably acquitted".

7. The observation of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the Case of Methu Meda (Supra) was in the context of implication of the person concerned in a serious case as would be discernible from para 15 of the judgment, which is reproduced hereinafter :

"15. In the present case, the charges were framed against the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 347/327/323/506 Part II and 364-A of IPC. He was acquitted after trial vide judgment dated 19.03.2010 by the Sessions Judge, Jhabua because the person kidnapped Nilesh and also his wife have not supported the case of prosecution. As per prosecution, the complainant was beaten by the respondent and the said fact found support from the evidence of doctor. Therefore, it appears that the Committee was of the view that acquittal of the respondent, in the facts of the present case, cannot be termed as 'honourable acquittal' and the said acquittal may be treated by giving benefit of doubt."

8. In the facts of the aforesaid case, the appellant was accused of committing serious offences under Section 364A as well as 326 and other offences under the IPC. Section 364A is 'Kidnapping for Ransom'. It was in that context that the Court refused to come to the rescue of the appellant concerned. Unlike the case of Methu Meda (Supra), the charges here are different. The allegation is of stone pelting and hurling abusive language etc. to the informant and his family members apart from causing simple injuries. In the F.I.R., the appellant was otherwise was not named.

9. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Methu Meda (Supra) was not available to be applied in the facts of the present case. Since we find that the claim of the petitioner has not been accorded consideration and his claim has been discarded in a routine and mechanical manner, as such, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge is set aside. The order passed by the authorities rejecting petitioner's claim is also set aside.

10. The Special Appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of with a direction to the Superintendent of Police to revisit the matter keeping in view the observation made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (Supra), by passing a fresh order within a period of six weeks.

Order Date :- 25.4.2025

DKS