Allahabad High Court
Shri Kishan Paswan vs Union Of India And 2 Others on 14 February, 2020
Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 59 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2511 of 2020 Petitioner :- Shri Kishan Paswan Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bholeshwar,Jainendra Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- Vivek Kumar Rai Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The petitioner was empanelled for the post of Constable, (Exe) in RPF. He was called for medical examination. He affirmed an attestation form before the authorities regarding his character and antecedents. It was sent to District Magistrate, Gorakhpur for verification, whereupon it transpired that NCR No. 197 of 2013, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, PS Jhingan was registered against him. He was also punished with fine in the said case. Having regard to the said fact, his candidature has been cancelled by order dated 3.1.2020, impugned herein.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that NCR No. 197 of 2013 was registered when the petitioner was a juvenile. The incident relates to some dispute with a neighbour on a petty issue. The court while imposing fine of Rs. 500/- also specifically provided in its order dated 5.11.2019 that it will have no adverse effect on future pursuits, including his claim for service in any department. It is urged that while passing the impugned order, the respondents had failed to take into consideration the guidelines laid down by Supreme Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others, 2016 (8) SCC 471, wherein it is provided that in case the alleged offence is of a trivial nature, the employer may choose not to cancel the appointment. It is further submitted that since the order of the criminal court itself provides that it will have no adverse effect on future pursuits of the petitioner, including his service, therefore the impugned order is manifestly illegal. It is also urged that the fact that the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of incident, has also not been taken into consideration.
Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 Sri Vivek Rai very fairly states that respondent no. 2, who is the competent authority, shall revisit the matter within such time as may be directed by this court.
Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of with direction to respondent no. 2 to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of observations made above and the law laid down by Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra), within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, along with fresh representation and supporting documents. The impugned order will abide by the decision that shall be taken by respondent no. 2 in compliance of the instant order.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 14.2.2020/Jaideep/-