# Abhilash Kumar v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 496
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-04-03
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41702 of 1998
- **Bench:** Bharati Sapru
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abhilash-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42220
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226-Right
of appointment-petitioner selected as
Police Constable-not allowed to join
Training-on
allegation
of
false
deceleration in application form-inspite
of interim order-not enforced within an
year-subsequent
acquittal-immaterialheld-person propensity to perpetuate
falsehood not entitled to be a member of
disciplinary force-case law relied by
petitioner-distinguishable
considering
facts and the circumstances-petitioner
dismissed.

Held: Para 17, 18 and 19

Thus in my opinion, the petitioner
deserves no relief. It may also be stated
here that despite interim order given by
1 All] Abhilash Kumar V. State of U.P. and others
497
this Court, the petitioner was never
allowed to join and he did not file any
contempt petition within a period of one
year.

The
judgments
relied
on
by
the
petitioner do not apply to the case in
hand. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court relied on by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is distinguisable on the
point that this is not the case of
termination but rather the petitioner was
not allowed to join duty from very
beginning.

The enforcement of law and order in the
nation cannot be left to the hands of the
persons who have the propensity to
perpetuate falsehood or are inclined to
give misleading information for such
propensity's would then no doubt also
extend in the carriage of their duties.
Case law discussed:
2011 AIR SCW 3601; Aditya Kumar versus
State of U.P. and others (special appeal (D)
no.997 of 2009) decided on 13.10.2009; Ram
Kumar versus State of U.P. and others (special
appeal (d) no.924 of 2009) decided on
31.8.2009; 1997 (1) ESC 179 (SC); (2003) 3
SCC 437; (2005) 7 SCC 177

## Text

496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
the workman is forged which is foundation
of the termination order then the principle
of discharge simplicitor cannot be applied.
Satisfaction
of
the
employer
which
empowers him to order the discharge of an
employee is only to assess the suitability of
a person to be retained in service or not.
Any act of the employer unconnected with
the purpose which results the termination
of an employee then the veil has to be
lifted in order to find out the purpose for
such termination. Once it is disclosed that
services of the employee are terminated for
some misconduct even if he is on
probation then the enquiry in the matter is
required to be conducted.

5. In the present case, foundation of
the order is that he has managed to get an
employment on the basis of a certificate
which was found to be forged. This is a
matter which requires to be enquired into
and an opportunity has to be given to the
workman to rebut this plea. Petitioner
cannot invoke the principle that since the
workman is on probation as such he has
power to dispense with his services, even if
there is a case of misconduct on the basis
of
which
his
services
have
been
terminated. It is already stated herein
supra, that the foundation of the order
determines the scope of interference by the
Court where the order clearly mentions
that the order of discharge is based upon
the fact that the work of employee was not
found to be satisfactory than no judicial
review in such matter is permissible. But
where the order of discharge is founded on
the ground that there are allegations of
misconduct against the employer in that
eventuality the Courts have always power
to review the order on the ground as to
whether enquiry in the matter has been
conducted or not before issuance of order
of termination. In the present case, no such
enquiry has been conducted.

6. In this view of the matter, I do not
find any reason to interfere in the
impugned order. The impugned order do
not suffers from any illegality or infirmity.
The writ petition lacks merits and is hereby
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.04.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BHARATI SAPRU,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41702 of 1998

Abhilash Kumar

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.C.Srivastava
Sri C.B.Yadav
Sri V N Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 226-Right
of appointment-petitioner selected as
Police Constable-not allowed to join
Training-on
allegation
of
false
deceleration in application form-inspite
of interim order-not enforced within an
year-subsequent
acquittal-immaterialheld-person propensity to perpetuate
falsehood not entitled to be a member of
disciplinary force-case law relied by
petitioner-distinguishable
considering
facts and the circumstances-petitioner
dismissed.

Held: Para 17, 18 and 19

Thus in my opinion, the petitioner
deserves no relief. It may also be stated
here that despite interim order given by
1 All] Abhilash Kumar V. State of U.P. and others
497
this Court, the petitioner was never
allowed to join and he did not file any
contempt petition within a period of one
year.

The
judgments
relied
on
by
the
petitioner do not apply to the case in
hand. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court relied on by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is distinguisable on the
point that this is not the case of
termination but rather the petitioner was
not allowed to join duty from very
beginning.

The enforcement of law and order in the
nation cannot be left to the hands of the
persons who have the propensity to
perpetuate falsehood or are inclined to
give misleading information for such
propensity's would then no doubt also
extend in the carriage of their duties.
Case law discussed:
2011 AIR SCW 3601; Aditya Kumar versus
State of U.P. and others (special appeal (D)
no.997 of 2009) decided on 13.10.2009; Ram
Kumar versus State of U.P. and others (special
appeal (d) no.924 of 2009) decided on
31.8.2009; 1997 (1) ESC 179 (SC); (2003) 3
SCC 437; (2005) 7 SCC 177

(Delivered by Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J. )

1. This petition has been filed by the
petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus
directing the respondents to allow the
petitioner to join duties and complete his
training.

2. The case in the writ petition is
that
the
petitioner
appeared
in
examination and test for the recruitment
of constables and cleared it in the year
1998 but after being selected, he was not
sent for training on the ground that there
was a criminal case pending against the
petitioner being criminal case no.61 of
1997 under sections 325, 323, 504, 506
I.P.C.

3. It has been stated clearly in para 5
of the writ petition that no chargesheet
has been submitted by the State against
the petitioner and no conviction has been
made. This court passed an interim order
on 16.12.1998 allowing the petitioner to
complete his training and join his duties.

4. A counter affidavit was filed by
the State in which revelations were made
in the affidavit with regard to the case of
the petitioner.

5. It was brought to the notice of the
court that the petitioner at the time of
making an application for selection and in
the verification affidavit, had stated that
he was not involved in any case and had
not been chargesheeted. The petitioner
had in fact made false statement in the
verificatioin
affidavit
and
upon
an
examination of the verification, the matter
came
to
light
that
he
had
been
chargesheeted in criminal case no.61 of
1997 under sections 325, 323, 504, 506
I.P.C.

6. The contentions of para 4 of the
counter affidavit have been replied in para
4 of the rejoinder affidavit and are not
denied. The petitioner has simply stated
that he had no knowledge of the said
matter. In a latter affidavit, the petitioner
has brought on record the fact that he was
subsequently acquitted on 10.5.2002.

7. The tenor of the petition is that
the petitioner was falsely implicated in a
case and because he was ultimately
acquitted, he should have been allowed to
join duties.

8. On the other hand, counter
affidavit reveals that the ground for not
allowing the petitioner to join duties and
498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
to go for training was on account of fact
that he had given false information in his
verification.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has argued that because he was ultimately
acquitted, he should have been allowed to
join duties and has relied on judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case
of Commissioner of Police and others
versus Sandeep Kumar, reported in
2011 AIR SCW 3601 in which the
accused respondent was terminated from
service for having given false statement in
his verification. Hon'ble Apex Court has
taken a lenient view of the matter and has
stated that the courts must display wisdom
in condoning the minor indiscretions
made by young people rather than to
brand them as criminals for the rest of
their lives.

10. In the case Commissioner of
Police and others versus Sandeep
Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
was referring to a case of Welsh students,
who
had
participated
in
making
demonstration before the Court, which
was considered contemptuous.

11. Learned standing counsel who
has appeared for the respondents has on
the contrary relied on two Division Bench
decisions of this Court in the case of
Aditya Kumar versus State of U.P. and
others (special appeal (D) no.997 of
2009) decided on 13.10.2009 in which the
Special Appeal Court, relying on the
Hon'ble Apex Court has come the
conclusion that where the petitioner made
a declaration which on verification was
found to be false and he did not contest
the same but only submitted that he had
been acquitted of the charges and
therefore he should have been taken into
consideration for appointment, would not
be judicious.

12. The Division Bench has also
held that in the facts and circumstances of
that case when the petitioner did not
contest the effect of loding of the F.I.R.
before
the
date
of
declaration,
cancellation of the appointment could not
be held to be bad on any count.

13. The second Division Bench
decision in the case of Ram Kumar
versus State of U.P. and others (special
appeal (d) no.924 of 2009) decided on
31.8.2009 in which also this Court has
taken a view that where a false
declaration has been made and it is
discovered from the examination of the
verification, no relief should be given to
such a petitioner.

14. The Supreme Court decisions
have been relied by the Division Bench
are Delhi Administrative and others
versus Sushil Kumar reported in 1997
(1)( ESC 179 (SC) and Kendriya
Vidyalaya
Sangathan
versus
Ram
Ratan Yadav reported in (2003) 3 SCC
437 and A.P. Public Service Commision
versus
Koneti
Venkateswarulu
reported in (2005)7 SCC 177.

15. Having heard Sri Neeraj Singh
for the petitioner and Sri A.C. Mishra
learned
standing
counsel
for
the
respondents State and having perused the
consistent view of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the above-noted case, I am of the
opinion, the petitioner in the present case
does not deserve any relief.

16. The petitioner was seeking
appointment as police constable. The
personnel of the police force are sentinels
1 All] Smt. Pushpa Agarwal V. Insurance Ombudsman U.P. And Uttaranchal and others
499
of the nation. Their character and integrity
at all times should be above board
including at the threshold of their
appointments. It would certainly not be
wise to induct a person in a disciplined
force who has at the threshold of his
appointment sought induction on the basis
of falsehood or misleading information.
This would not be conducive for
maintaining peace and order in the nation.
On the other hand, it would be completely
contradictory and opposed to it.

17. Thus in my opinion, the
petitioner deserves no relief. It may also
be stated here that despite interim order
given by this Court, the petitioner was
never allowed to join and he did not file
any contempt petition within a period of
one year.

18. The judgments relied on by the
petitioner do not apply to the case in
hand. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court relied on by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is distinguisable on the
point that this is not the case of
termination but rather the petitioner was
not allowed to join duty from very
beginning.

19. The enforcement of law and
order in the nation cannot be left to the
hands of the persons who have the
propensity to perpetuate falsehood or are
inclined to give misleading information
for such propensity's would then no doubt
also extend in the carriage of their duties.

20. The writ petition is dismissed as
above. No costs.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.04.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJIV SHARMA,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50352 of 2008

Smt. Pushpa Agrawal

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Insurance
Ombudsman
U.P.
And
Uttaranchal and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.D. Singh
Sri Diptiman Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Prakash Padia

Constitution of India, Article 226-claim
of Insurance Policy-insurer kidnapped
and murdered-denial on ground of death
not accidental but murder-even the
death of criminal background assuredtermed as accidental death due to-helddenial on ground but murdered-even the
death of criminal background assuredtermed as accidental death-held-denial
of claim arbitrary and illegal-necessary
direction to pay the benefits with cost
given.

Held: Para 34

Considering the matter in all pros and
cons, I am of the view that reasoning
given by the Ombudsman cannot be
justified by any standard. LIC policy
excludes death due to limited causes
mentioned in Exclusion Clause under
para 10(b) and, therefore, it is totally
irrelevant to find out the background of
the deceased. Further, even in case
where there is a criminal background of
the assured, it would be difficult to hold
that his murder was not accidental
unless he has taken up the quarrel and
that the immediate cause of injury was