Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9652 of 2017
Petitioner :- Sadanand Kumar
Respondent :- Union Of India And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam,Atipriya Gautam,Mohammad Fahad,Vinod Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- Vivek Singh,Manan Kumar Choubey,Manoj Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manan Kumar Choubey, learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 29.07.2015 by which his candidature for the post of Trainee Constable Recruit has been cancelled on the ground of suppression of material facts.
The petitioner has been named in a Criminal Case No.1668 of 2013 bearing Case Crime No.561 of 2012, under Sections 323, 325, 504 & 506 I.P.C, P.S. Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar, which came to be registered on 22.06.2012.
The record reveals that petitioner has filled attestation form on 05.06.2014 declaring that he has never been prosecuted and no case is pending against him at the time of filling of attestation form. The petitioner has been acquitted in aforesaid criminal case by judgement dated 09.03.2015.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order impugned is not sustainable as the same has been passed without application of mind. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the two judgements of this Court passed in Writ- A No.45913 of 2015 & Writ-A No.54866 of 2015 and contends that in identical circumstances, this Court had remanded the matter to the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of judgement of Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India 2016 (8) SCC 471.
He further contends that petitioner had joined as Trainee, and therefore, an opportunity of hearing ought to have been afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Thus, he submits that the order impugned is not sustainable on this ground also.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contends that it is not in dispute that petitioner while filling the attestation form has stated that he has never been prosecuted and no case is pending against him in any court of law, and thus, petitioner has suppressed the material facts while filling the attestation form. He submits that acquittal of the petitioner in the aforesaid criminal case is immaterial. He further submits that in the instant case, petitioner has been acquitted after filling the attestation form, therefore, the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) is of no help to petitioner. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court passed in Writ-A No.24901 of 2017.
He further submits that no opportunity of hearing is required to be given to petitioner, as it is evident from the record that petitioner has suppressed the material fact, and therefore, even if the order impugned has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to petitioner, the impugned order cannot be vitiated on the ground of non compliance of principles of natural justice.
I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
The facts as emanates from the record are that petitioner has suppressed the material fact while filling the attestation form inasmuch as he has stated in the attestation form that he has never been prosecuted and no case is pending against him.
The two judgements of this Court passed in Writ-A No.45913 of 2015 & Writ-A No.54866 of 2015 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the facts of the present case inasmuch as, those judgements have been rendered in a fact situation where order impugned was non speaking and this Court found that the order of cancellation of candidature of the petitioners were non speaking and same had been passed without application of mind, and accordingly, this Court quashed the order and remanded the matter to the authority to consider afresh in the light of judgement of Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra).
In the present case, it is not in dispute that petitioner has been prosecuted in a criminal case and has been acquitted in the said criminal case after he has executed the attestation form.
The judgement of Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the present case, as paragraph 38(4) of the said judgement refers to those cases where information with regard to pendency of criminal case is suppressed, but acquittal has been recorded prior to the date of filling of attestation form.
In identical circumstances, this Court in Writ-A No.24901 of 2017 has dismissed the writ petition. Relevant extract of the said judgement is being extracted herein below:-
"The issue itself arises in the backdrop of the petitioner being named in criminal case No. 355 of 2007 which came to be registered on 28 May 2007. It is not disputed before this Court that the petitioner executed an attestation form on 26 May 2014 wherein he declared that he had neither been arrested, prosecuted nor kept under detention. From the facts which stand recorded in the impugned order, the Court notes that the petitioner was in fact arrested and had obtained bail thereafter from the concerned Court. The declarations, therefore, as made were clearly incorrect and amounted to suppression of material facts. It s also relevant to note that the petitioner had answered in the negative even to the question which required him to disclose whether he had ever been prosecuted. Even this statement is demonstrated to be false since admittedly the petitioner faced a trial in the criminal case and was ultimately acquitted on 23 February 2015. Bearing in mind the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, 2016(8) SCC 471, the Court finds no error in the view so taken by the authorities."
Accordingly, this Court finds that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the two judgements of this Court is misplaced, as those judgements have been rendered in different facts situation.
It is settled principles of law that if on admitted facts only one conclusion can be arrived at, the Court would refuse to quash the said order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice as no useful purpose would be served by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is rejected.
Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner.
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 29.9.2021 Sattyarth