Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27756 of 2018 Petitioner :- Vijay Singh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Prakash Pandey
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
Petitioner has been selected for appointment to the post of sub Inspector in U.P. Police in the recruitment exercise initiated in the year 2015 but no appointment order has been issued to him on account of pendency of criminal proceedings in case crime No. 262 of 2002, under Section 323, 324, 504 IPC at Police Station Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad and another as case crime No. 402 of 2013, Under Section 324, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad.
The petitioner is said to be acquitted in both the cases. However the respondents have not passed orders of appointment to the petitioner and that he has not been sent for training, despite the petitioner having been acquitted. Submission is that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of Indian and others, 2016(8) SCC 471, his claim for appointment is liable to be considered in accordance with law.
After analyzing the law on the subject, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under in para 38 in Avtar Singh (supra):-
"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."
Learned Standing Counsel submits that the grievance of the petitioner shall be examined by the authority concerned, in accordance with law.
Considering the facts and circumstances, noticed above, this petition stands disposed off, permitting the petitioner to approach the respondent no.4, in respect of his grievance raised before this Court, within a period of two weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall be at liberty to annex all materials in support of his claim as has been highlighted before this Court. In case such materials are placed before the authority concerned, the same shall be examined, in accordance with the law laid down by Apex Court in Avtar Singh (supra). The required consideration shall be made by the authority concerned within a period of two months thereafter.
Order Date :- 21.12.2018 C. MANI