Allahabad High Court
Sachin Dwivedi vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 10 September, 2025
Author: Ajit Kumar
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:160418
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 11514 of 2025
Sachin Dwivedi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Ila Deol, Puran Nath Shukla, Sarita Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 4
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
In compliance of the order of this Court dated 12.08.2025, instructions filed today by learned Standing Counsel are taken on record
The issue before this Court is whether the petitioner in spite of being selected as Constable in Civil Police pursuant to selection against the advertisement issued in the year 2023 has been rightly denied appointment only on account of the fact that police verification report has denied certificate on account of pending criminal case.
It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that mere involvement in a criminal case and that too when instituted after petitioner had filed application against the advertisement, more especially in the circumstances when it arises out of a sheer family dispute, there cannot be ipso facto rejection of candidature of a duly selected candidate. It is submitted that in the light of principles laid down in the judgment of Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others 2016 (8) SCC 471, even character verification ought not to have been denied. It is argued that in the matter of criminal investigation arising out of case crime no. 187 of 2024 for some family dispute, the police did not find any evidence against the petitioner to frame him into charge of commission of alleged offence. The police did not find any evidence intrinsic enough against petitioner at all. However, upon submission of final report under Section 173 of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court on a protest petition issued summons.
Upon a pointed query being made, learned Standing Counsel could not dispute that no final order has been passed by the selecting and recruiting authority namely the respondent no. 6 in the matter till date.
In the given facts of the case and considering the law laid down in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), I consider it appropriate to remit the matter to the respondent no. 2 to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the purposes of appointment since he has been placed in select list more for the reason that he has no criminal history to his credit and it was on account of implication in a criminal case for a family fued by sister-in-law that petitioner's name figured in the first information report and that too after he submitted application pursuant to the advertisement.
A pragmatic view shall be taken by respondent no. 6 in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court vide Para 38 of Avtar Singh (supra) has directed the authority to revisit the matter which is quoted hereunder:"38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize 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. The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
38.3. 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 recourse 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."
Appropriate decision shall be taken by the competent authority within a maximum period of one moth of production of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of.
(Ajit Kumar,J.)
September 10, 2025
IrfanUddin
