Allahabad High Court
Satyendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 9 January, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:4359 A.F.R. Reserved Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16791 of 2023 Petitioner :- Satyendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra,Bushra Maryam Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Himanshu Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 and Ms. Bushra Maryam, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.2 and 3.
2. Petitioner through this writ petition has assailed the order dated 11.8.2023 passed by the Chairman, Documents Verification Committee/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj, whereby his candidature for the post of Stenographer Grade III has been cancelled on the ground that at the time of submission of application for appointment, he had suppressed/concealed material information relating to pendency of a criminal case against him.
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that an advertisement was issued for the Uttar Pradesh Civil Court Staff Centralized Recruitment 2022-23, whereby applications were invited from eligible candidates for appointment on the posts of Stenographer Grade III. Petitioner submitted his application in prescribed proforma for appointment on the post of Stenographer Grade III and in the said application, against the columns where candidate was required to give information regarding pending criminal cases, he has written 'No'.
4. The final result of the selection for the post of Stenographer Grade III was declared on 16.5.2023 and petitioner was declared successful. Petitioner after declaration of aforesaid result submitted a notarial affidavit on 26.5.2023, whereby he disclosed that a criminal case registered as Case Crime No.143 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 354 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibtion Act is pending against him. After submission of the aforesaid affidavit by the petitioner, a show cause notice was issued by the Chairman, Documents Verification Committee/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj, whereby petitioner was required to submit his explanation as to why he has concealed the information relating to pendency of a criminal case against him, at the time of submission of application form.
5. Petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid show cause notice dated 7.6.2023, on 12.6.2023, wherein he has admitted that a criminal case was pending on the date of submission of application form for appointment on the post of Stenographer Garde III but since his form was filled in by the operator of a cyber cafe, as such he has written 'No' against the column, where petitioner was required to disclose the criminal cases pending against him therefore, non disclosure of pending criminal case cannot be treated as deliberate suppression of the material facts and further, the said mistake may be condoned by treating it to be a clerical error. The Chairman, Documents Verification Committee/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj has considered the reply submitted by the petitioner and has passed the order on 11.8.2023, wherein finding has been recorded that petitioner while submitting application form for appointment on the post of Stenographer Grade III has deliberately suppressed/concealed the facts regarding pendency of criminal case against him. Further finding has been recorded that the post of Stenographer Grade III of the Civil Court is a sensitive post and on the said post the person who has suppressed/concealed facts regarding pendency of criminal case against him cannot be appointed. The Chairman, Documents Verification Committee/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj vide his order dated 11.8.2023 has cancelled the candidature of the petitioner.
6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since application form submitted by the petitioner was filled in by the operator of a cyber cafe therefore, inadvertently he had written 'No' against the columns under which petitioner was required to make disclosure about the pending criminal cases therefore, petitioner cannot be held responsible for deliberate suppression/concealment of facts regarding pendency of criminal case. It has further been submitted that subsequently petitioner himself has filed an affidavit on 26.5.2023, whereby information regarding pending criminal case was provided to the competent authority therefore, petitioner cannot be held guilty for non-disclosure of the facts relating to pendency of a criminal case.
7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court towards the fact that the criminal case which was pending against the petitioner on the date of submission of application form for appointment on the post of Stenographer Grade III has been concluded and petitioner has been acquitted from all the charges vide judgment and order dated 5.6.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Prayagraj in Case No.1946 of 2021.
8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has cited a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others, 2016 (8) SCC 471 and has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment has categorically held that in the cases of suppression/concealment of material facts regarding pending criminal cases, employer has to consider the facts of the case as to whether charges in the criminal case which has not been disclosed by the candidate are so serious that he cannot be appointed on the post in question or he cannot be allowed to continue in service and in the present case, petitioner was tried for a trivial offence and since he has been acquitted from the charges, the order passed by the employer by which petitioner's candidature has been cancelled, cannot sustain in the eyes of law.
9. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), the competent authority must have considered that the charges levelled against the petitioner in the criminal case were trivial and further, he has been acquitted in the criminal case therefore, looking into the career and future prospects of the petitioner, the employer should not have cancelled his candidature, whereas in most arbitrary manner, without considering the relevant facts of the case, petitioner's candidature has been cancelled vide order dated 11.8.2023 as such, the said order cannot sustain in the eyes of law.
10. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has also argued that once after selection of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Stenographer Grade III petitioner himself has submitted an affidavit and has disclosed that a criminal case was pending against him and further he has been acquitted in the said criminal case, the employer would not have cancelled petitioner's candidature but in most arbitrary manner, his candidature has been cancelled vide order dated 11.8.2023. It has further been argued that the post of Stenographer is not such a sensitive post where a person against whom a trivial criminal charge was levelled and later on he has been acquitted from the said charge, cannot be appointed therefore, the order dated 11.8.2023, which is impugned in this writ petition, is absolutely arbitrary and reflects total non-application of mind as relevant factors as required under the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) have not been considered.
11. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has thus concluded his arguments and has submitted that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), the order dated 11.8.2023 passed by the Chairman, Documents Verification Committee/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj cannot sustain in the eyes of law accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be allowed by this court.
12. Per contra, Ms. Bushra Maryam, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.2 and 3 has submitted that in the application form to be filled in by the candidates for selection on the post of Stenographer Grade III, there was specific requirement for the candidates to disclose the pending criminal cases but petitioner while filling up his application form has written 'No' against the columns where he was required to disclose pending criminal cases therefore, it is apparent that the petitioner has suppressed/concealed the material facts, accordingly he is not entitled for appointment on the post of Stenographer Grade III.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.2 and 3 has further submitted that petitioner is seeking appointment on the post of Stenographer in the Civil Court, therefore the story set out by the petitioner that his application form was filled in by the operator of a cyber cafe cannot be believed as he is an educated person as such, it is expected from him that he must have seen each and every information given in his application form.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.2 and 3 has vehemently argued that suppression of the material facts regarding pending criminal cases by a candidate seeking appointment on a particular post raises serious doubt on his character and therefore, once it is established that there is suppression/concealment regarding pending criminal case, the employer has every right to cancel the candidature of the said candidate or to terminate services of an employee. It has further been argued that the competent authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner whereby he was required to submit his reply and thereafter, reply submitted by the petitioner has duly been considered and the competent authority has found that once petitioner has deliberately suppressed/concealed the facts relating to pending criminal case against him at the time of submission of application form, he is not fit to be appointed on the post of Stenographer Grade III in the Civil Court as the work in the courts attaches higher degree of trust and responsibility.
15. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.2 and 3 has also argued that petitioner has filed an affidavit after his selection for appointment on the post of Stenographer Grade III, wherein he has disclosed the pending criminal case therefore, it is apparent that petitioner at the time of submission of application form deliberately suppressed/concealed the material facts and has not disclosed about pending criminal case.
16. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.2 and 3 has cited judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India and others, (2023) 7 SCC 536 and State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Bhupendra Yadav, AIR 2023 SC 4553 and has argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgments has categorically held that suppression/concealment of facts relating to pendency of criminal cases by a candidate itself is sufficient for cancellation of his candidature or terminating services of an employee as the person who at the time of filling up application form has not disclosed the pending criminal cases, cannot be allowed to work on a sensitive post as non-disclosure raises serious doubt on his character therefore, the employer has every right to deny appointment to the said candidate.
17. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.2 and 3 has thus concluded her arguments and has submitted that since petitioner deliberately has not disclosed the pending criminal case as such, the order dated 11.8.2023 passed by the competent authority, whereby petitioner's candidature has been cancelled, does not warrant interference by this court and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
18. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that in the application form meant for appointment on the post of Stenographer Grade III, candidate was required to disclose the pending criminal cases against him but the petitioner, while filling up the said relevant columns of the application form, has written 'No', whereas it is admitted case of the petitioner that on the date of submission of application form, criminal case being Case Crime No.143 of 2019, registered under Sections 498A, 354 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, was pending. The relevant portion of the application form submitted by the petitioner is extracted as under:-
Criminal Proceeding Have you ever been tried, convicted or acquitted by Court of law?
No Whether any criminal complaint case have ever been registered against you?
No
19. This court finds that result of the selection in question was declared on 16.5.2023 and thereafter proceedings relating to police verification of the selected candidates started. At that point of time, petitioner realized that he had not disclosed criminal case pending against him therefore, he submitted a notarial affidavit on 26.5.2023, wherein for the first time he disclosed the criminal case pending against him. From the facts of the case, it is apparent that petitioner has deliberately suppressed/concealed the criminal case pending against him. Petitioner is an educated person therefore, this story cannot be believed that application form of the petitioner was filled in by the operator of a cyber cafe and he has written 'No' in front of the questions relating to the pending criminal cases.
20. Now, this court proceeds to consider the issue as to whether on the ground of suppression/concealment of pending criminal case, candidature of a selected candidate for appointment on a post can be cancelled.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment rendered in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) has considered the law laid down in different judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the issue as to where the candidate has suppressed/concealed the pending criminal case or has disclosed that he has been convicted in a criminal case, what course is available with the employer to take a decision either for cancellation of candidature of a selected candidate or to offer him appointment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after summarizing the entire law on the issue has given its conclusion in paragraph 30. Paragraph 30 of the judgment rendered in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) is extracted as under:-
30. 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:
(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.
(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.
(3) The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
(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 recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted : -
(a) 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.
(b) Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.
(c) 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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(11) Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.
22. This court finds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) has held that 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that once there is suppression/concealment of pending criminal cases against the candidate, then the employer can cancel his candidature for the appointment.
23. The judgment rendered in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India, (2023) 7 SCC 536, wherein after considering the entire law on the issue, it has been held that suppression of material information and making a false statement in the application form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc. has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee. It has further been held that if it is found that employee has suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness for suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment rendered in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) are extracted as under:-
62. In the Union of India (UOI) v. Dilip Kumar Mullick, (2022) 6 Scale 108, a CRPF officer had suppressed the fact that the proceedings under the IPC pending against him. The Court, while referring to Avtar Singh (supra), held that the suppression can be a ground for an employer to cancel the candidature or to terminate the services. The respondent served in the organization since 2003 and continued to remain as an under trial accused without the knowledge of the organisation. The respondent received an honourable acquittal from the trial court. This Court held as under:
"13. Thus, it remains beyond the pale of doubt that the cases of non-disclosure of material information and of submitting false information have been treated as being of equal gravity by this Court and it is laid down in no uncertain terms that non-disclosure by itself may be a ground for an employer to cancel the candidature or to terminate services. Even in the summation above- quoted, this Court has emphasized that information given to the employer by a candidate as to criminal case including the factors of arrest or pendency of the case, whether before or after entering into service, must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of the required information.
14. In case of suppression, when the facts later come to the knowledge of employer, different courses of action may be adopted by the employer depending on the nature of fault as also the nature of default; and this Court has indicated that if the case is of trivial nature, like that of shouting slogans at a young age etc., the employer may ignore such suppression of fact or false information depending on the factors as to whether the information, if disclosed, would have rendered incumbent unfit for the post in question.
14.1. However, the aforesaid observations do not lead to the corollary that in a case of the present nature where a criminal case was indeed pending against the respondent and the facts were altogether omitted from being mentioned, the employer would be obliged to ignore such defaults and shortcomings. ... x x x x
16. In the given set of facts and circumstances, where suppression of relevant information is not a matter of dispute, there cannot be any legal basis for the Court to interfere in the manner that the employer be directed to impose 'any lesser punishment', as directed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The submissions seeking to evoke sympathy and calling for leniency cannot lead to any relief in favour of the respondent." [Emphasis supplied]
63. In the case of Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 532, a case was registered against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323, 356 and 506 of the IPC. The appellant was honourably acquitted. However, the fact of the said criminal prosecution was not disclosed in the attestation form filled by the petitioner. On such ground, the appellant was discharged from service. The High Court upheld the discharge. While allowing the appeal, this Court held as follows:
"13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What being noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service.
x x x x
18. The criminal case indeed was of trivial nature and the nature of post and nature of duties to be discharged by the recruit has never been looked into by the competent authority while examining the overall suitability of the incumbent keeping in view Rule 52 of the Rules 1987 to become a member of the force. Taking into consideration the exposition expressed by this Court in Avtar Singh (supra), in our considered view the order of discharge passed by the competent authority dated 24th April, 2015 is not sustainable and in sequel thereto the judgment passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Delhi does not hold good and deserves to be set aside." [Emphasis supplied] xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
65. Thus, this Court took the view that irrespective of the fact whether the dispute is of a trivial nature or not, it is the credibility/ trustworthiness of a particular employee which matters the most when it comes to public employment. This Court took the view that if a particular employee suppresses something important or makes any false declaration with a view to secure public employment then such employee could be said to have exhibited a tendency which is likely to shake the confidence of the employer. In such circumstances, it would be within the discretion of the employer whether to continue or not to continue such an employee who has exhibited a tendency which reflects on his overall character or credibility.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
68. The only reason to refer to and look into the various decisions rendered by this Court as above over a period of time is that the principles of law laid therein governing the subject are bit inconsistent. Even after, the larger Bench decision in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) different courts have enunciated different principles.
69. In such circumstances, we undertook some exercise to shortlist the broad principles of law which should be made applicable to the litigations of the present nature. The principles are as follows:
a) Each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by the public employer concerned, through its designated officials-more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society's security. [See Raj Kumar (supra)]
b) Even in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. The acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post. It would be still open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether the candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post.
c) The suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification Form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee. If it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service.
d) The generalisations about the youth, career prospects and age of the candidates leading to condonation of the offenders' conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided.
e) The Court should inquire whether the Authority concerned whose action is being challenged acted mala fide.
f) Is there any element of bias in the decision of the Authority?
g) Whether the procedure of inquiry adopted by the Authority concerned was fair and reasonable?
24. This court finds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) has categorically held that if an employee while filling up his application form for appointment on the post has suppressed/concealed the pending criminal case, then it has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee and therefore, if it is found that employee has suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having bearing on his fitness for suitability to the post, his services can be terminated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that that the generalisations about the youth, career prospects and age of the candidate leading to condonation of the offenders' conduct, should not enter into the judicial verdict and should be avoided.
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has again considered the law in respect of issue involved in this writ petition and has rendered a judgment in the case of Bhupendra Yadav (supra), wherein it has been held that if a candidate in a selection has suppressed/concealed material facts relating to criminal cases pending against him, then if the employer feels that a candidate who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and therefore, he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment rendered in the case of Bhupendra Yadav (supra) are extracted as under:-
"13. In Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Another v. Anil Kanwaria, where the employer had invited applications for the post of a Technical Helper and on qualifying for the said post, the respondent therein was appointed as a probationer trainee, in the course of his police verification which was a pre-condition for confirming him to the post, it had transpired that he had been convicted by the trial Court for offences under Sections 323 and 341 of the IPC but was extended benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and released on good conduct. This Court observed that at the time of submitting an application for appointment, the respondent had already suffered a conviction by the competent Court which fact was withheld by him and he had filed a false declaration. These facts emerged only after receiving the police verification report. After distilling the law on appointments obtained by fraud or misrepresentation/by suppression of material facts, this Court proceeded to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and upheld the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, directing reinstatement of the respondent - employee and held that said decision was unsustainable in view of the fact that the employee had not disclosed/suppressed material facts and had filed a false declaration.
14. In the captioned case, this Court expressed a view that even where there was a subsequent acquittal, the employee having furnished false information/indulged in suppression of material fact of a pending criminal case, cannot claim appointment as a matter of right. Following are the observations made regarding the credibility of such an employee from the perspective of the employer:
"14. The issue/question may be considered from another angle, from the employer's point of view. The question is not about whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature andwhether he has been subsequently acquitted or not. The question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of the employment i.e. while submitting the declaration/verification and/or applying for a post made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or suppressing material fact of having involved in a criminal case. If the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer might not have appointed him. Then the question is of trust. Therefore, in such a situation, where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to the employer. At the cost of repetition, it is observed and as observed hereinabove in catena of decision such an employee cannot claim the appointment and/or continue to be in service as a matter of right."
15. On applying the law expounded by this Court in a series of decisions to the facts of the instant case, we find that the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the appeal1 preferred by the appellant - State Government and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge who had upheld the order passed by the Competent Authority, terminating the services of the respondent on the ground that he was candid enough to make a disclosure in his verification form stating that he had been chargesheeted in a criminal case wherein he was later on acquitted and there was no other criminal case pending against him at the relevant time.
16. We are, however, unable to concur with the aforesaid view. Even though the respondent had truthfully declared that he was involved in a criminal case which was decided by the trial Court vide judgement 26th October, 2015, on perusing the facts of the said case as noted hereinabove and the observations made in the judgement, quite clearly, this was not a case of clean acquittal. It is evident from the facts narrated that after the chargesheet was filed, the respondent had arrived at a compromise with the complainant and filed an application under Section 320 of the CrPC, based on which the offence under Section 341 IPC was compounded. As for the remaining offences for which the respondent was charged i.e. Section 354(D) of the IPC and Section 11 (D)/12 of the POCSO Act, they were non compoundable and therefore, the matter was taken to trial. The respondent was acquitted by the trial Court primarily on account of the fact that the complainant did not support the case set up by the prosecution and the other prosecution witnesses had turned hostile. In such circumstances, the respondent's plea that he had been given a clean acquittal in the criminal case, is found to be devoid of merits."
26. This court finds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgments has considered the issue of non-disclosure of pending criminal cases by an employee while submitting his application form for selection/appointment and has held that concealment/suppression of the facts relating to pending criminal cases has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee therefore, if it is found that the employee has suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his conduct for suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service.
27. This court further finds that petitioner while filling up the application form for appointment on the post of Stenographer Grade III has deliberately suppressed/concealed the fact of pending criminal case against him and therefore, the employer after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly keeping in view the trust and responsibility attached to the post of Stenographer in the Civil Court, has found that petitioner can not be appointed on the post of Stenographer Grade III and thereby has cancelled his candidature vide order dated 11.8.2023. So far as the story set out by the petitioner in the writ petition that his application form was filled in by the operator of a cyber cafe, is concerned, the said story does not inspire confidence as petitioner is an educated youth and is seeking appointment on the post of Stenographer Grade III in the Civil Court therefore, it is expected from him that he will fill up the application form and will personally re-check all the entries made therein. So far as another issue that petitioner has submitted affidavit before the employer whereby he has disclosed criminal case pending against him, is concerned, it is apparent from the record that said affidavit has been filed by the petitioner after he has been declared successful in the result of selection in question therefore, the said affidavit cannot dilute the suppression/concealment made by the petitioner at the time of submission of his application form.
28. So far as subsequent acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case is concerned, this court is of the view that once in the application form a candidate is required to disclose the pending criminal case and if the said fact is suppressed/concealed, merely because at subsequent stage candidate has been acquitted in the criminal case, that will not dilute the suppression/concealment of material facts as the same has direct bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the candidate.
29. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this court is of the view that the petitioner at the time of filling up his application form for appointment on the post of Stenographer Grade III has deliberately suppressed/concealed the fact of pending criminal case and the competent authority after providing opportunity to the petitioner and considering his reply, has passed the order dated 11.8.2023, whereby petitioner has not been found fit for appointment on a sensitive post of Stenographer in the Civil Court therefore, the order dated 11.8.2023 does not call for any interference by this court.
30. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.1.2024 Salim