Allahabad High Court
Arun Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. ... on 12 May, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27767 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5187 of 2025 Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Juli Rastogi,Sagun Chandra Rastogi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
1. Heard Ms. Juli Rastogi, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the order dated 13.08.2021 whereby the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected for appointment on the post of Constable in the U.P. Police merely on account of the fact that a Criminal Case Crime No. 119/2018, U/S 60/63/72 of Excise Act, has been registered against the petitioner in Thana Palia, District Kheri.
3. The appointing authority while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner instead of recording his own satisfaction with regard to eligibility of the petitioner for holding the said post has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Avatar Singh Vs. Union of India.
4. Accordingly, it has to be considered as to whether in a case where maximum punishment is up to five year is pending and the petitioner is truthfully disclosed the pendency of the criminal case would such fact dis-entitle the petitioner from holding an uniform service.
5. Learned Standing Counsel has received written instructions, which are taken on record. From the written instructions it is noticed that it does not dispute the aforesaid facts.
6. Considering the rival submissions it is noticed that the petitioner had participated in the U.P. Police/Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC, direct Recruitment, 2018 and was successful in written examination and subsequently appeared in physical test and declared fit. It is submitted that all the documents as required by the respondents were submitted by the petitioner and also disclosed the fact that criminal case was registered against him being Case Crime No. 119/2018, U/S 60/63/72 of Excise Act, has been registered against the petitioner in Thana Palia, District Kheri.
7. The petitioner appeared in the medical test and final result was also published indicating that petitioner was successful in the said recruitment. Despite being successful candidate, no letter was received by the petitioner asking him to join the training and it is at this stage that the petitioner came to know that due to pendency of criminal case, he has been found to be not fit for being appointed on the post of Constable (Civil Police/PAC).
8. In this regard petitioner has represented before the competent authority, who has passed impugned order dated 13.0.2021 and holding that due to pendency of criminal case as stated in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, he cannot be appointed.
9. In the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others (supra), the Apex Court has held 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:
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.
1. 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.
2. 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 : -
3. 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.
4. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. 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."
10. Accordingly, it is clear that the employer has to take into consideration the gravity of the allegations levelled against an incumbent in the first information report and also consider explanation submitted by the candidate and take decision as to whether he should be allowed to continue in the Uniform Service.
11. In the present case, this Court finds that there is absence of any consideration by the competent authority to the gravity of charges and the suitability of the petitioner to hold the post, but competent authority has merely passed the impugned order relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others (supra). The absence of reasons goes to the very root of the matter and it disclosed mind of the person who has taken the decision as to whether he has applied his mind to all the facts which are necessary for arriving at just and fair decision.
12. In the present case, without even considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner in the first information report, merely on the ground of directions of the Apex Court, the candidature of the petitioner has been cancelled. Accordingly, exercise of power in the present case is contrary to the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others (supra) and hence the impugned order dated 13.08.2021 is illegal and arbitrary and is hereby set aside.
13. The respondent no. 6 - District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri, is directed to pass fresh order with expedition, after taking into account the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the first information report and also seek response of the petitioner with regard to any special circumstances which may be submitted by the petitioner and thereafter, pass fresh reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law complying with the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others (supra).
14. In the light of above present writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 12.5.2025 R.C.