The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned order dated 31.08.2019 passed by respondent no.4, which is appended with the petition as Annexure - 1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that impugned order dated 31.08.2019 (supra) passed by respondent no.4/Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar is contrary to the principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India - 2016 (8) SCC 471.
Learned counsel has invited attention of the Court towards an order dated 05.08.2019 rendered in Writ Petition No.22104 (SS) of 2018 (Madhusoodan v. State of U.P. & Ors.) and submitted that inspite of specific direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of principle laid down in Avtar Singh's case (supra), the impugned order has been passed in arbitrary manner.
Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner cannot be denied his appointment on the basis of pendency of criminal case as per law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. To support his submission, learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ A No.9300 of 2020 (Mooni v. State of U.P. & Ors.) dated 02.12.2020.
Learned counsel has submitted that in view of the above, impugned order dated 31.08.2019 (supra) is bad in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed.
Per contra, Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by petitioner's counsel and submitted that there is no pleading on record as to whether the petitioner has given/furnished information about any criminal case against him to the concerned authority at the time of filling up form. It is submitted that the petitioner has knowingly not disclosed the said fact before the concerned authority.
Learned counsel has further submitted that Avtar Singh's case (supra) provides 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".
It is submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner has knowingly suppressed the information about pendency of a criminal case against him, therefore, he is not entitled for the benefit of Avtar Singh's case (supra). He has also submitted that order passed in Writ A No.9300 of 2020 (supra) is also not applicable in the case of the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner did not inform the authority concerned about pendency of criminal case against him. Upon a specific question as to why the petitioner did not furnish details regarding the criminal case pending against him at the time of filling up the form, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner being a student then was not aware of the criminal case pending against him, which cannot be accepted.
It is settled law that the criminal case pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude, but suppressing this information itself amounts to moral turpitude. In fact, the information sought for by the employer if not disclosed by the candidate would definitely amount to suppression of material information. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to be appointed.
In view of the above, I do find any good ground to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.1.2021 nishant/-