Allahabad High Court
Sourabh Bhati vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 3 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:193325
(A.F.R.)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14111 of 2023
Sourabh Bhati
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Shams Uz Zaman
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 34
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. On the oral request of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, he is permitted to correct the array of the parties, in so far as Respondent no.4 is concerned.
2. Heard Sri Shams Uz Zaman, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
3. Since counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and a joint statement has been made that they do not propose to file any further affidavit, the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage.
4. The case of the writ petitioner is that the State of U.P. undertook exercise for filling up of the post of Sub-Inspector, Civil Police, P.C. (P.A.C) for the year 2020-21. The writ petitioner claims to have applied in pursuance of the said advertisement. He was allotted Registration No. SICUP0932048 and Roll No. LU1824148311 and Admit Card also came to be issued and the writ petitioner appeared in the examination, results were declared on 22.10.2022 and he was allowed to appear in physical examination. Prior to the advertising of the said post, a criminal case came to be lodged against the writ petitioner being Case Crime no.630 of 2019, under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307, 325, 34 IPC and a charge sheet came to be submitted against the writ petitioner on 25.12.2019. The writ petitioner in the affidavit so submitted at the stage of physical verification of the documents disclosed the factum of pendency of the said case. However, the candidature of the writ petitioner rejected on the premise that there happens to be a criminal case pending against the writ petitioner on 03.04.2023 by the Inspector General of Police, Meerut Zone, Meerut.
5. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition has been preferred.
6. This Court entertained the writ petition on 05.09.2023, wherein a counter affidavit was invited and the same has been filed by the Respondent no.2, 3 and 4 respectively and the rejoinder affidavit is also available on record.
7. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has sought to argue that the entire exercise has been sought to be undertaken by the respondents while rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner and cancelling the candidature of the writ petitioner by virtue of the order dated 03.04.2023 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law for even a single moment. Submission is that it is not a case that the writ petitioner had concealed the factum of lodging of the criminal case, as the same stood mentioned in the affidavit which was submitted at the time of document verification and on top of it subsequently, the said criminal case resulted into acquittal on 21.04.2025 by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Baghpat in Sessions Trial no.112 of 2020 connected with Sessions Trial No.398 of 2019 being Case Crime no.630 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 307, 325 read with Section 34 of IPC. Argument of the writ petitioner is that once the writ petitioner stood acquitted in the criminal case, then the fetter, which was tagged in the character of the writ petitioner by virtue of the lodging of the FIR stands obliterated. Submission is that the judgment and the order of acquitted presumes that there is no criminal case against the writ petitioner and further according to learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the case of the writ petitioner is on a better footing, particularly when there has been disclosure of the said case. He further submits that the order of acquittal is dated 21.04.2025, however, the order negating the claim of the writ petitioner is dated 03.04.2023 and at that point of time, the order of acquittal was not in existence. Further submission is that there happens to be a circular/ office order dated 28.04.1958, which deals with the subject, verification of the character of the first appointment, according to which a conviction need not itself involve the refusal of certificate of good character, however, the circumstances of the conviction should be taken into account, if they involve moral turpitude or association with the crime of violence or with a movement which has its own object to overthrow by violent means of Government or by law established in free India that mere conviction need not be regarded as disqualification. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of a Special Appellate Bench in Special Appeal No.67 of 2023, Umesh Chand vs. State of U.P. and 3 others, decided on 24.03.2023.
8. Strength has also been sought to be injected upon the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others (2016) 8 SCC 471. Thus, it is prayed that the order dated 03.04.2023 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Meerut Zone, Meerut, be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the authority to pass a fresh order considering the import and impact of acquittal as well as the Circular dated 28.04.1958.
9. Countering the submissions, so made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel submits that the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief for the reason that there already existed a criminal case against the writ petitioner being Sessions Trial No.112 of 2020, under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 34, 504, 506 IPC and merely because the writ petitioner stood acquitted would not clothe him with any legal right to insist for appointment as character verification is one of the prerequisites that too in disciplined force. He seeks to rely upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal no.3419 of 2020, Anil Bhardwaj vs. Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh decided on 13.10.2020.
10. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the records carefully.
11. Facts are not an issue. It is not in dispute that a recruitment exercise stood undertaken for filling up the post of Sub-Inspector in the year 2020-21 and the writ petitioner applied for the post of Sub-Inspector, Civil Police. The writ petitioner during the document verification had tendered an affidavit, disclosing the factum of pendency of the criminal case being Sessions Trial no.112 of 2020, under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 34, 504, 506 IPC. On investigation, the Appointing Authority sought inputs from the District Magistrate, with respect to character of writ petitioner and thereafter the order impugned came to be passed cancelling the selection of the writ petitioner.
12. The procedure and the manner, according to which, selection is to be made on the post in question is governed by the Rule namely Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector Civil Police Service Rule 2015. Rule 16 of the said Rule is quoted hereinunder:- "Character Verification shall be completed under the supervision of appointing authority before issuing of appointment letter and before sending the candidates for training. Ordinarily character verification shall be completed within a month. On adverse fact coming to light during character verification of any candidate, he shall be declared unfit by the appointing authority and such vacancies shall be carried forward for next selection."
13. Furthermore, the Government Order No.4694-II-B-321-1947 dated 28.04.1958 talks about the character of first appointment and the relevant extract whereof is being quoted hereinunder:- "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 abject to overthrow by violent means of Government as by law now established in free India the mere conviction need not be regarded as disqualification.1 (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)."
14. A bare look of the Government Order dated 28.04.1958 would reveal that in the cases of doubts the appointing authority may either ask for further references or may refer the case to the District Magistrate concerned and the District Magistrate can make further enquiry for the grant of character certificate and Note (a) itself provides that a conviction need not of itself involve the refusal of the certificate of good character, the circumstances of conviction should be taken into account and if they involve any moral turpitude or association with the crime of violence or with movement, which has its object to overthrow by violent means of government as by law now established in free India, the conviction need not be regarded as disqualification. Thus, what is clear is this that mere conviction is not a ground for refusal of the appointment. In other words it can be very well said that a consideration is to be made at the end of the appointing authority whether conviction can be a ground for offering or refusing appointment looking into the facts and circumstances of an individual matter.
15. On a pointed query being raised to Sri R.S. Umrao, whether the Government Order dated 21.05.1958 has been superseded or amended or is not applicable to the Sub-Inspector, the answer is that the same is in existence and the same is followed from time to time and further it governs the field with respect to grant of character certificate. Bearing in mind the fact that the Government order dated 21.05.1958 is in existence and it is applicable on the subject recruitment and it does not in any way whatsoever impinge or offend Rule 16 of the U.P. Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rule 2015, thus the appointing authority is under obligation to consider the claim of the writ petitioner with respect to the import and impact of acquittal, which is post passing of the order impugned. In Avatar Singh vs. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471, the following was observed: "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, 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."
16. Further the said issue also came up for consideration in Civil Appeal No.5902 of 2012, Ravindra Kumar vs. State of U.P. decided on 22.02.2024, wherein the following was observed: - "Further, in para 38.4.3 of Avtar Singh (Supra) 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 (supra) with the following crucial para in Avtar Singh (Supra):
"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.""
17. Further with respect to recruitment, on the post of Head Constable and the Constables pursuant to Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rule 2015, as amended in the year 2017, a position akin to which is emerging herein came up for consideration before the Special Appellate Bench in Special Appeal No.67 of 2023, Umesh Chand vs. The State of U.P. and 3 others, decided on 24.03.2023, wherein the following was observed: "Though, a specific query was made to the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as to whether there exits any other rule or guideline for rejecting the candidature for recruitment of a candidate the moment he is found implicated in criminal case, however, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel while inviting attention of the court towards supplementary counter affidavit has only referred to Rule 16 of the 2015 Rules so as to contend that when adverse is found in the character of a candidate then he is declared unfit. There is no assertion in the supplementary counter affidavit that the Government Order dated 28.04.1958 has either been superseded or it is not applicable. In view of the stand taken by the State-respondents as well as in absence of any provisions of law being pointed before us, we have no option but to presume that the Government Order dated 28.04.1958 is occupying the field providing for the modalities of verification of character of antecedents of Government servants before their fresh appointment. Once the Government Order dated 28.04.1958 provides that mere conviction cannot be a ground to withhold appointment then in these circumstances the case of the writ petitioner is to be accorded fresh consideration particularly in view of the fact that there was a complete and full disclosure of the pendency of the criminal case and also the additional fact that he has not been convicted by criminal court. "
18. As regards the reliance and the reference so placed upon by the learned Standing Counsel upon the judgment in Anil Bhardwaj (supra) is concerned, there is no quarrel to the proposition of law so culled out herein but there is slight distinction in the present case that is with regard to existence of the Government Order dated 21.05.1958 which applies with full force and the same aids to the provisions contained under Section 16 of the U.P. Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules 2015.
19. Though reliance has also been placed upon the judgment in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Another Vs. Anil Kanwariya, Civil Appeal Nos. 5743-5744 of 2021 decided on 17.09.2021, Union of India and Others Vs. Methu Meda, Civil Appeal No. 6238 of 2021 decided on 06.10.2021, State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Chetan Jeff reported in AIR 2022 (SC) 2274, Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India and Ors., Civil Appeal No.- 6955 of 2022 decided on 26.09.2022, Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 678 of 2021 decided on 28.02.2023 so as to contend that mere disclosure of the criminal case in the application form by a candidate is one thing, but the same cannot be a sole ground to accord issuance of appointment order to the candidate, particularly when, acquittal would not be of any avail is concerned in Umesh Chand (supra), the following was observed:- "Judgments relied upon by the learned Chief Standing Counsel in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (supra) is a case wherein the employee did not disclose about the factum of pendency of a criminal case which even in fact dis-entitled him to be accorded appointment though he was subsequently acquitted as the question of trust intervened and the employer was held to be legally justified in not continuing the employee in employment. Here in the present case there is no allegation of non-disclosure or concealment , thus the judgment in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (supra) is distinguishable. So far as the case of Methu Meda (supra) is concerned the same is relatable to import and impact of acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. It was held that for claiming appointment, in a criminal case the acquittal should be honorable and not the benefit of doubt. Similarly the case of Chetan Jeff (supra) is also distinguishable on the facts, particularly when in the said case there was concealment and material suppression of pendency of criminal case, which is lacking the present case at hand. With regard to reliance placed upon by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) is concerned, the same is also not applicable in the present case as in the said case the Hon'ble Apex Court held that acquittal in a criminal case could not automatically make entitled a candidate for appointment to a post as still it would not be open to the employer to consider antecedents whether the candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post. The judgment in the case of Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla (supra) is not also applicable as it was a case wherein the candidate suppressed the material fact of pendency of the criminal case."
20. Thus, it can be safely said that the matter needs to be revisited by the appointing authority in the wake of the intervening facts relating to acquittal of the writ petitioner.
21. By saying so, this Court in no manner whatsoever denudes the appointing authority to take its independent decision taking into account the over all facts and situation including the import and impact of the acquittal of the writ petitioner while satisfying itself incoming to the conclusion whether it would be a case of according appointment or not. The said exercise is to be undertaken by the appointing authority on its own while dwelling upon each and every aspect of the matter within the four-corners of the Rules or the Government order in force.
22. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 03.04.2023 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Meerut Zone, Meerut is set aside. Matter stands remitted back to the authority to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
23. Passing of the order today would not automatically accord issuance of the appointment or reinstatement to the writ petitioner as the same would be subject to the orders which would be passed by the authority pursuant to the direction of the Court.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
November 3, 2025
N.S.Rathour
