Allahabad High Court
Avneesh Yadav vs The State Of U.P. And 7 Others on 15 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:203235
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 17105 of 2025
Avneesh Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. And 7 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Rishabh Kesarwani
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 34
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Rishabh Kesarwani, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Gaurav Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Sri Gaurav Singh, learned Standing Counsel submits that he is well equipped with the instructions and learned counsel for the parties submit that they do not propose to file any affidavit and the writ petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record.
3. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the fresh state.
4. The case of the writ petitioner is that an advertisement came to be published on 23.12.2023 with respect to the recruitment on the post of Constable and the recruitment was titled as Constable in Uttar Pradesh, Constable in U.P. Police, Constables Civil Police Direct Recruitment- 2023. The writ petitioner applied under OBC category and he cleared the selection. However, at the stage of document verification, the writ petitioner submitted an affidavit clearly mentioning therein that there happens to be an FIR lodged against the writ petitioner in Case Crime no.856 of 2018, under Section 323, 412, 504, 506 IPC, however, the candidature of the writ petitioner had been negated by the Addl. Commissioner of Police, Head Quarter Commissionerate Agra, Respondent no.7, on 19.09.2025 owing to the fact that against the writ petitioner, criminal case had been preferred.
5. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been preferred.
6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has sought to argue that the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the second respondent cannot be sustained for a single moment. Elaborating the said submission, it is submitted that it is not the case, wherein the writ petition had not disclosed the factum of lodging of criminal case against him, as the same is also not the case of the respondents. However, the claim of the writ petitioner has been negated on the ground the the FIR has been lodged. He submits that there happens to be a Government Order dated 28.04.1958, which itself provides that mere conviction would not be a ground to deny appointment with respect to the character, particularly when a conscious decision is to be taken by the appointing authority in this regard. He submits that even the matter stands covered by a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Avatar Singh vs. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, wherein the following parameters have been laid down:- "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."
7. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the matter ought to have been considered in correct perspective in that regard.
8. Sri Gaurav Singh learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that whatever might be there happens to be a criminal case pending against him, but he submits that the order impugned is not forthcoming that it is a case of concealment and according to him, the matter needs to be revisited in light of the decision in the case of Avatar Singh (supra).
9. Considering the submissions so made across the Bar and bearing in mind that it is not forthcoming from the order impugned that the writ petitioner has concealed the factum of lodging of the criminal case, which is stated to be pending, as also the Circular dated 20.04.1958 occupies the field, wherein mere conviction would not be ipso facto a ground to deny appointment, thus the matter needs to be revisited.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in the following manner:-
(a) The writ petitioner shall file a comprehensive representation along with self attested copy of the writ petition and the certified copy of the order by 28.11.2025 before Respondent no.7, who shall thereupon revisit and reconsider the entire aspect with relation to bearing in mind the judgment in Avatar Singh (supra), the Circular dated 28.04.1958 while satisfying himself as to whether it is a case of concealment or not and pass an appropriate order within a period of two months, from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
(b) The order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the seventh respondent, Addl. Commissioner of Police, Headquarter, Commissionerate, Agra, District Agra shall be subject to the final order to be passed therein.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
November 15, 2025
N.S.Rathour
