Allahabad High Court
Pankaj Yadav vs State Of U P And 3 Others on 6 August, 2022
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RESERVED ON :- 20.6.2022
DELIVERED ON:- 6.8.2022
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13602 of 2019
Petitioner :- Pankaj Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ranjeet Yadav,Satyawan Yadav,Shiv Bahadur Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Piyush Shukla
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri Shiv Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
This petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 29.4.2019 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh, respondent No.4 and the order dated 29.8.2018 passed by the respondent no.3, District Nodal Officer, Police Recruitment Centre, Azamgarh. Further prayer has been made for directing the appointing authority to appoint the petitioner on the post for which he was finally selected and for providing all the benefits attached to the said post regularly.
The brief facts of the petition are that petitioner applied in pursuance of the advertisement issued by U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow for appointment on the post of constable in the year 2015 and he was duly selected. At the time of his medical examination he gave an affidavit dated 12.6.2018 stating that neither any criminal case is registered against him nor police investigation is pending against him as per his knowledge. Later it was found that petitioner is involved in a case being N.C.R. No. 33/2015 under sections 323,504,506 I.P.C. P.S. Didarganj, hence by the impugned order dated 29.9.2018 the respondent no.3 rejected the candidature of the petitioner. Petitioner approached this court by way of Writ Petition No. 22855 of 2018on the ground that he never had any knowledge of the NCR No. 33/2015 and therefore the impugned order dated 19.9.2018 passed by the respondent no.3 alleging concealment of material fact by him is unsustainable.
This court disposed of the writ petition of the petitioner directing the Superintendent of Police Azamgarh to consider the claim of the petitioner as per the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India ,2016 (8) SCC,471.In pursuance of the aforesaid order of this court by the impugned order dated 29.4.2019, the respondent no.4, Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner after registration of N.C.R. aforesaid was challenged under sections 151/107/116 Cr.P.C. and therefore he was aware of his implication in the earlier case.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that challan of the petitioner under aforesaid sections of Cr.P.C. was as consequence of N.C.R. no. 33/2015 wherein final report dated 14.8.2018 was submitted by the investigating officer. The petitioner was never detained in jail or taken into judicial custody.
Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that petitioner deliberately concealed the lodging of the aforesaid N.C.R against him in his affidavit, therefore he is not entitled to grant of any relief.
After hearing the rival contentions this court finds that the challan of the petitioner under sections 151/116/107 Cr.P.C. was on 3.4.2015 and it came to end after six months therefore it will have no effect .However implication of the applicant under N.C.R. No. 33 of 2015 was there and final report has been submitted therein on 14.8.2018 by the investigating officer wherein it has been found by the investigating officer that no evidence was found against the accused persons, however the fact remains that affidavit was filed by the petitioner on 12.6.2018 stating that he is not aware of any criminal case/ police investigation pending against him but at that time investigation of the aforesaid N.C.R was pending against him which he did not disclosed. The Apex court in the case of Avatar Singh (supra) has held in paragraph 38.4.1 that for a petty offence, which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for the post in question, the employer may, in its discretion may ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse. For ready reference paragraph 38 of the aforesaid judgement is being reproduced herein below:-
"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."
In the present case there is clearly suppression of registration of an N.C.R. by the petitioner which was under police investigation in his affidavit. However he was subsequently not found subsequently involved in the incident. As per the judgement of the Apex court aforesaid it is for the employer to exercise its discretion whether the offence alleged against the petitioner was of trivial nature and would not effect his suitability of the post of constable.
Accordingly the impugned orders are quashed. The Respondent no.4,Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner as per paragraph no. 38.4.1 of the case of Avatar Singh (Supra) within a period of eight weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before him.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :-6.8.2022 Atul kr. Sri.