Allahabad High Court

Nakul Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Others on 26 May, 2025

Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra

Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89185-DB
 
Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 976 of 2012
 

 
Appellant :- Nakul Kumar
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.

1. This special appeal arises out of an order passed by learned Single Judge dated 27.9.2010, whereby Writ-A No.68052 of 2009 filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed. In the writ petition the appellant has challenged the order dated 4.8.2007, whereby his appointment was cancelled. The subsequent order dated 19.8.2009 rejecting the petitioner's representation has also not been interfered with.

2. Facts of the case lie in a narrow campus. The appellant before this Court applied for appointment on the post of Constable in the year 2006 in U.P. Police. He cleared successive stages of recruitment and was ultimately appointed as Constable and posted at District Bijnor. He started working with effect from 14.6.2006. It appears that the authorities called for character verification of the appellant and it transpires that Case Crime No.384 of 2004 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Kanth, District Moradabad in which a Final Report No.26 of 2004 dated 9.11.2004 was also submitted. The final report is at page no.91 of the paperbook which records that implication of the appellant was found false and neither his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was ever recorded nor the appellant had ever applied or secured bail.

3. Notices were issued to the appellant by the employer on the ground that he had suppressed/concealed the pendency of criminal case against him. This notice was replied on the ground that no criminal case was pending against him and that he was otherwise not aware of his implication in such case. The authorities, however, have not found any substance in such plea. Appointment of appellant on the post of Constable was cancelled.

4. Learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Koveti (2005) 7 SCC 177, Ram Saran vs. I.G., C.R.P.F. AIR 2006 SCW 74 to hold that the suppression on part of the appellant with regard to his criminal antecedents was sufficient to disentitle him to grant of public employment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had no knowledge about his implication in the aforesaid criminal case which was in respect of some trivial issue inter-se between family members. He also submits that the petitioner neither was involved in such case nor had taken any part in criminal activity.

6. Our attention has been invited to the character verification role in which the only information required by virtue of clause 11 from the employee was as to whether the employee has been convicted in any criminal case and to furnish details in respect thereof.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has further stated that neither the appellant was ever made aware of his implication in the criminal case nor his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded. It is also submitted that the appellant in the absence of information never applied for or secured his bail either. It is argued that this fact also indicates that the appellant had in fact no knowledge of the criminal antecedents.

8. Learned State counsel, however, defends the judgment of learned Single Judge for the reasons recorded therein.

9. Law with regard to consequence of a candidate's implication in a criminal case has been the subject matter of consideration in a series of judgments passed by the Supreme Court from time to time. The judgment in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471 has been noticed in para 22 of the recent decision in Ravindra Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2024) 5 SCC 264, which is reproduced hereinafter:-

"22. The law on this issue is settled by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425]. Paras 34, 35, 36 and 38, which sets out the conclusions, are extracted hereinbelow : (SCC pp. 506-508)

?34. No doubt about it that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess suitability and it is open to employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects.

35. Suppression of ?material? information presupposes that what is suppressed that ?matters? not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases.

36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects.

***

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, [Ed. : The matter between two asterisks has been emphasised in original.] holding [Ed. : The matter between two asterisks has been emphasised in original.] 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."

10. In para 29 and 32 of the judgment in Ravindra Kumar (supra) the Court has observed as under:-

"29. We have also kept in mind the recent judgment of this Court in Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India [Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, (2023) 7 SCC 536 : (2023) 2 SCC (L&S) 43] and the broad principles set out by this Court in para 93, especially, paras 93.1, 93.3 and 93.7. Even the broad principles set out therein recognise that each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by the public employer concerned and the Court is obliged to examine whether the procedure of enquiry adopted by the authority concerned was fair and reasonable. Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] in para 38.2 has held that while passing the order of cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. Further, in para 38.4.3 of Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] the principle that, in case of suppression or false information of involvement of criminal case, where acquittal has already been recorded, the employer can still consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. We have read and understood the broad principles laid down in Satish Chandra Yadav [Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, (2023) 7 SCC 536 : (2023) 2 SCC (L&S) 43] with the following crucial paragraph in Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] : (SCC pp. 506-507, para 35)

?35. Suppression of ?material? information presupposes that what is suppressed that ?matters? not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases.?

32. The nature of the office, the timing and nature of the criminal case; the overall consideration of the judgment of acquittal; the nature of the query in the application/verification form; the contents of the character verification reports; the socio-economic strata of the individual applying; the other antecedents of the candidate; the nature of consideration and the contents of the cancellation/termination order are some of the crucial aspects which should enter the judicial verdict in adjudging suitability and in determining the nature of relief to be ordered."

11. In light of the law settled by the Supreme Court when the facts of the present case are analyzed we find that there existed absolutely no reason for cancelling the appointment of the appellant, inasmuch as there was neither any misrepresentation nor any suppression on part of the appellant. The only implication in criminal case was in respect of an offence under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC. We also find that the closure report was already submitted and accepted by the authorities which has clearly recorded that the appellant had no role to play nor any such offence had actually occurred. The fact that appellant was not aware of such implication finds support from the fact that neither his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded nor he ever applied for or secured bail in the matter. Even otherwise, we find that the charges were absolutely trivial in nature and did not constitute any material to reflect adversely upon the employeability of the appellant in U.P. Police. We find that learned Single Judge has not examined the matter in correct perspective nor the facts of the case have been analyzed in detail. In such circumstances, the judgment of learned Single Judge passed in Writ-A No.68052 of 2009 cannot be sustained and is set aside.

12. Orders impugned in the writ petition dated 4.8.2007 and 19.8.2009 are quashed. The appellant shall be reinstated in service. He shall be entitled to continuity in service from the date of his initial appointment. However, as the appellant has not worked for all this period, we do not deem it appropriate to allow payment of arrears of salary for such period. The appellant, however, shall be reinstated within a month and shall be entitled to salary as and when it falls due from time to time.

13. Special appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

Order Date :- 26.5.2025