# Abhishek Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 1323
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-31
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 254 of 2023
- **Bench:** Saral Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abhishek-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50376
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120B -
Information
Technology
Act,
2008
-
Section 66 - Examination Rules, 1982 -
Section 7 - Assistant Review Officer, moral
turpitude, cancellation of candidature, criminal
cases,
disclosure
in
application
form,
Government
Order
1958,
suitability
for
appointment, Allahabad High Court Rules 1976
The petitioner challenged the order dated
October 1, 2022, by respondent no.2 (Registrar
General), cancelling his candidature for the post
of Assistant Review Officer (ARO) due to two
pending criminal cases involving charges
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120B
of IPC, Section 66 of the IT Act, 2008, and
Section 7 of the Examination Rules, 1982,
deemed to involve moral turpitude. The
petitioner applied under Advertisement No.
01/R.O. & A.R.O./2021, was successful in the
selection process, but failed to disclose the
criminal cases in the online application form,
revealing
them
only
during
document
verification via an affidavit dated April 2,

## Text

_Characters 0–39,809 of 55,504. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39809 for what follows._

7 All. Abhishek Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1323
supplied to the petitioner and a charge sheet
containing eight charges was served upon
the petitioner and charge Nos.3&6 were
found to be proved against the petitioner.

18. Moreover, the petitioner himself
accepted the charges against him and made
a request that he should be awarded minor
punishment, which itself proves that the
charges were proved against him. The show
cause notice could not be served upon the
petitioner as he was not available in his
office / residence and his family members
have also denied from receiving the same
and
thereafter,
the
said
notice
was
published in daily news papers, namely,
Dainik Jagran and Times of India on
29.06.2004 for information upon the
petitioner.

19. From the aforesaid, it is crystal
clear that the charge Nos.3&6 were rightly
proved against the petitioner and he was
afforded proper opportunity of hearing
while initiating inquiry proceeding against
him.

20. This Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned order dated
29.07.2004 has rightly been passed against
the petitioner and there is no illegality. The
judgments relied upon by learned counsel
for the petitioner do not help the petitioner
and are distinguishable to the present facts
and circumstances of the case.

21. The writ petition lacks merit and
is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 1323
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-A No. 254 of 2023

Abhishek Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Siddharth Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ashish Mishra, Sri Fuzail Ahmad
Ansari, Sri Rahul Srivastava

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120B -
Information
Technology
Act,
2008
-
Section 66 - Examination Rules, 1982 -
Section 7 - Assistant Review Officer, moral
turpitude, cancellation of candidature, criminal
cases,
disclosure
in
application
form,
Government
Order
1958,
suitability
for
appointment, Allahabad High Court Rules 1976
The petitioner challenged the order dated
October 1, 2022, by respondent no.2 (Registrar
General), cancelling his candidature for the post
of Assistant Review Officer (ARO) due to two
pending criminal cases involving charges
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120B
of IPC, Section 66 of the IT Act, 2008, and
Section 7 of the Examination Rules, 1982,
deemed to involve moral turpitude. The
petitioner applied under Advertisement No.
01/R.O. & A.R.O./2021, was successful in the
selection process, but failed to disclose the
criminal cases in the online application form,
revealing
them
only
during
document
verification via an affidavit dated April 2,
2022. The Recruitment Committee, with
approval from the Chief Justice, rejected his
candidature.
The
Court
upheld
the
cancellation of the petitioner's candidature
due to pending criminal cases involving moral
turpitude
and
non-disclosure
in
the
application form.

The writ petition was dismissed.

List of Cases referred:
1324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. U.O.I. Vs Methu Meda, (2022) 1 SCC 1

2. Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla Vs St. of J. & K., AIR
2023 SC 1308

3. Satish Chandra Yadav Vs U.O.I., 2022 SCC
Online 1300

4. Allahabad Bank Vs Deepak Kumar Bhola,
(1997) 4 SCC 1

5. St. Bank of India Vs P. Soupramaniane,
(2019) 18 SCC 135

6. Ajeet Kumar Vs St. of U.P., Writ-A No. 31466
of 2010

7. Shivendra Kumar Paswan Vs St. of U.P., WritA No. 17092 of 2021

8. Mohammed Imran Vs St. of Maharashtra,
(2019) 17 SCC 696

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shrawan
Kumar Dubey, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for respondent no.1, and
Sri Rahul Srivastava, Advocate holding
brief of Sri F.A. Ansari, learned counsel for
respondent no.2.

2. The petitioner through the present
writ petition has assailed the order dated
01.10.2022 passed by respondent no.2
rejecting the candidature of the petitioner
for the post of Assistant Review Officer on
the ground that criminal cases pending
against him fall within the purview of
'moral turpitude'.

3. The brief facts of the case are that
under
Advertisement
No.01/R.O.
&
A.R.O./2021 dated 17th August 2021,
online applications were invited from the
eligible candidates for filling up 350 posts
of
Assistant
Review
Officers.
The
petitioner applied for being considered for
appointment on the said post under
O.B.C/Physically Handicapped category.

4. The petitioner appeared in each
stage of selection and was declared
successful for the said post.

5. A notice was issued by the
selection committee calling upon the
petitioner to appear on 06.04.2022 for
document verification. The petitioner was
also required to furnish an affidavit to the
effect that whether any criminal case is
pending against him or not. The petitioner
submitted an affidavit dated 02.04.2022
during the document verification disclosing
the details of two F.I.Rs lodged against
him; (i) Case Crime No.0172 of 2019,
under Sections 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. at P.S.
Tajganj, District Agra; (ii) Case Crime
No.0389 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471, 472 & 120B I.P.C., Section 66 of
Information Technology Act, 2008 and
Section 7 of the Examination Rules, 1982.

6. Respondent no.2 vide order dated
01.10.2022 cancelled the candidature of the
petitioner on the ground that two criminal
cases pending against the petitioner come
within the purview of 'moral turpitude'. The
said order is impugned in the writ petition.

7. It is further stated that in Case
Crime No.0172 of 2019, the charge sheet
has been filed on 14.03.2020 under
Sections 420, 467, and 468 I.P.C. The
petitioner in the said criminal case has been
enlarged on bail by the Sessions Judge,
Agra vide order dated 18.03.2019 passed in
Bail Application no.1375 of 2019. In
respect to Case Crime No.0384 of 2021, it
is stated that a charge sheet has been filed
on 17.10.2021 under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471, 472, and 120-B of I.P.C. and
7 All. Abhishek Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1325
Section 66 of Information Technology Act,
2008 and Section 7 of Examination Rules,
1982. In the said criminal case, the
petitioner has also been enlarged on bail by
this Court vide order dated 11.08.2021
passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.26707 of 2021.

8. It is further stated that while
cancelling the candidature of the petitioner,
the
procedure
contemplated
in
the
Government Order dated 28.04.1958 has
not been followed. It is also alleged that the
impugned order did not advert to the
section under which F.I.R. has been lodged
and the conduct of the petitioner, and thus,
the impugned order has been passed
mechanically.

9. In the counter affidavit filed by
respondent no.2, it is stated that the petitioner
did not disclose the details about the
pendency of criminal cases against him in the
online application form. This fact is evident
from the online application form appended as
annexure 2 to the writ petition in which in the
column of 'criminal proceeding' the petitioner
has filled as follows:-

"Criminal Proceeding.

Have
you
ever
been
tried,
convicted or
acquitted by
Court
of
law?
No
Whether
any
criminal
complaint
cases
have ever
been
registered
against
you?
No"

10. It is further stated that in the
advertisement, General Instructions were
given under Chapter-9 for filling up the
online application form. Under the general
instructions, it is specifically stated that if a
candidate is found providing incomplete or
wrong information, then the candidate will
be solely responsible for the same, and
based on false and incomplete information,
the application form shall be rejected at any
stage of selection without giving any
reasons/notice. The general instruction also
provides that the candidate is required to
disclose the details in the application form
that any criminal proceeding has been
initiated against him/her or the First
Information Report has been lodged against
him/her, and concealment of any fact may
disqualify and entail cancellation of his/her
candidature.

11. I t is also stated in the counter
affidavit that as the petitioner did not
disclose the pendency of criminal cases in
the online application form as required
under Chapter-9 of the advertisement, the
candidature of the petitioner has been
cancelled.

12. The respondents further stated in
the counter affidavit that the petitioner
appeared on 06.04.2022 for document
verification, and the petitioner for the first
time in the affidavit dated 02.04.2022
disclosed the details of two F.I.Rs lodged
against
him.
Thereafter,
the
matter
concerning the petitioner was placed before
the Recruitment Committee at Agenda
No.6,
which
in
its
meeting
dated
20.09.2022 has resolved to reject the
candidature of the petitioner as the offences
under which the petitioner has been
charged fall within the purview of 'moral
turpitude'.
The
resolution
of
the
Recruitment Committee dated 20.09.2022
was duly seen by Hon'ble The Chief Justice
1326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on 30.09.2022. In compliance thereof, the
impugned order has been passed.

13. Challenging the aforesaid order,
learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that the impugned order does not
disclose any independent application of
mind inasmuch as the impugned order is
cryptic. It is contended that a detailed
procedure for verification of character and
antecedents of government servant before
the first appointment is provided in the
Government Order dated 28.04.1958 which
has to be adhered to before cancelling the
candidature of a candidate on the ground
that his/her character and antecedents are
not such to make him/her suitable for the
post.

14. Elaborating the argument, learned
counsel for the petitioner has contended
that if the District Magistrate of the
concerned district where the candidate
resides, on verification of character and
antecedents of the candidate forms an
opinion that the said report is adverse to the
candidate, an opportunity of hearing to the
candidate is must before furnishing such
adverse report. In support of the said
contention, he has placed reliance upon the
judgement of this Court in the case of Ajeet
Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others
passed in Writ-A No.31466 of 2010 and
Shivendra Kumar Paswan Vs. State of
U.P. and Others passed in Writ-A
No.17092 of 2021.

15.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner has further urged that as of
today, two criminal cases against the
petitioner are pending, and charges
against him in the aforesaid two criminal
cases are yet to be proved. Thus, it is
contended that the pendency of two
criminal cases cannot be made basis to
non-suit the petitioner for the post of
Assistant Review Officer.

16. It is further contended that the
Apex Court in the case of Mohammed
Imran Vs. State of Maharashtra and
Others (2019) 17 SCC 696 has allowed
the appeal of the appellant who was
denied appointment on the ground of
'moral turpitude'. On the strength of
aforesaid judgement, it is submitted by
the learned counsel for the petitioner that
respondent no.2 ought to have deliberated
that the nature of the allegation and
conduct of the petitioner is such that it
falls under the definition of 'moral
turpitude' whereas no such deliberation is
reflected from the impugned order.

17. It is also urged that under the
Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff
(Conditions of Service and Conduct)
Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as
'Rules, 1976') read with Notification
No.70 dated 14.11.2021, the Registrar
General is the appointing authority in the
matters of appointment, promotion, etc.
to Class-II (Non-Gazetted), Class-III and
Class-IV posts referred to in Rule 4 to
15(G) of Rules, 1976. Accordingly, it is
contended that the decision to appoint or
cancel the candidature of a candidate
ought to have been taken by independent
exercise of powers at the level of
appointing
authority
i.e.
Registrar
General,
and
not
by
Recruitment
Committee, as after selection, the role of
Recruitment Committee is over, and
Recruitment Committee has no power to
take
a
decision
with
regard
to
cancellation
of
candidature
of
a
candidate.

18. It is also urged that this Court
cannot go beyond the reasons given in the
impugned
order
for
cancelling
the
7 All. Abhishek Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1327
appointment of the petitioner while testing
the legality of the said order. It is submitted
that in the instant case, the impugned order
does not contain any ground that there was
concealment of fact in the application form,
therefore, such ground is not tenable in the
facts of the present case to uphold the
impugned order.

19. In the aforesaid backdrop, it is
submitted that the matter may be remitted
to respondent no.2 to consider the claim of
the petitioner afresh.

20. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents would contend that it is
evident from the application form of the
petitioner that he did not disclose the
pendency of two criminal cases against him
in the application form. It is further
contended that under the general instructions
in the advertisement, it is clearly stated that if
there
is
any
concealment
or
wrong
information furnished by the candidate in the
application form, he/she shall be solely
responsible for the same, and his/her
candidature shall be liable to be cancelled at
any
stage
of
selection
without
any
reasons/notice. It is further submitted that it is
the domain of the appointing authority to
consider the suitability of a candidate for a
post, and in the instant case, the resolution
was passed by the Recruitment Committee
and the same was placed before Hon'ble
Chief Justice on 30.09.2022, who perused the
resolution of the Recruitment Committee, and
therefore, there is no illegality in the
impugned order passed by the respondent
no.2.

21. Thus, it is submitted that the
appointing authority in its domain can look
into the charges levelled against the petitioner
in the criminal cases, and if he finds that
charges are such which fall within the
purview of 'moral turpitude', the candidature
of the petitioner can always be rejected.

22. It is further submitted that the
allegations against the petitioner in two F.I.Rs
are grave which come within the purview of
'moral turpitude'. It is submitted that
resolution of the Recruitment Committee,
which has been perused by Hon'ble The
Chief Justice, clearly reflects that there was
deliberation with regard to the suitability of
the petitioner for the post of Assistant Review
Officer, and since charges against the
petitioner are such which fall under the
definition of 'moral turpitude', therefore, there
is no illegality in the impugned order passed
by the respondent no.2.

23. It is also urged that by Notification
No.70 dated 14.11.2021, Hon'ble The Chief
Justice has been pleased to direct the
Registrar General of the Court to be the
appointing authority in respect of all matters
of appointment, promotion, etc. to Class-II
(Non-Gazetted), Class-III and Class-IV posts
referred to in Rule 4 to Rule 15(G) of Rules,
1976, and under the said notification,
Registrar General exercises its power as
appointing authority. It is contended that
since in the instant case, Hon'ble The Chief
Justice has perused the resolution of the
Recruitment Committee, and therefore, the
decision to cancel the candidature of the
petitioner is deemed to be of Hon'ble The
Chief Justice, who is the Head of the
Institution and who is the appointing
authority as per Rule 2(l) of the Rules, 1976,
therefore, the petitioner's objection that
respondent no.2 ought to have done an
independent
exercise
to
cancel
his
candidature is misconceived.

24. I have considered the rival
submissions of the parties and perused the
record.
1328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

25. The undisputed facts as emanates
from the record are that under the
advertisement
dated
17.08.2021,
the
petitioner submitted an online application
for being considered for appointment under
the O.B.C/Physical Handicapped category
on the post of Assistant Review Officer.
The petitioner was declared successful and
was, accordingly, called to appear for
document verification on 06.04.2022. The
petitioner was also required to furnish an
affidavit to the effect whether any criminal
case is pending against him or not. The
petitioner furnished an affidavit dated
02.04.2022 at the time of document
verification on 06.04.2022 disclosing for
the first time the details of two F.I.Rs
lodged against him, which are as follows:-

I. F.I.R. dated 19.02.2019 lodged
against the petitioner as Case Crime
No.0172/2019, under Sections 420, 467,
468 I.P.C. at police station-Tajganj,
District Agra in which charge sheet dated
14.03.2022 has been filed under Sections
420, 467 & 468 I.P.C. In the said criminal
case, the petitioner has been enlarged on
bail by Sessions Judge, Agra vide order
dated 18.03.2019.

II. F.I.R. dated 08.06.2021 lodged
against the petitioner as Case Crime
No.0389 of 2021. In the said criminal case,
a charge sheet has been filed on
17.10.2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471, 472, and 120B of I.P.C., Section 67 of
Information Technology Act, 2008 and
Section 7 of Examination Rules, 1982. The
petitioner was also enlarged on bail in the
said criminal case by this Court vide order
dated 11.08.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.26707 of 2021.

26. It is also not disputed by the
petitioner that he did not disclose the
pendency of two criminal cases against him
in the application form. However, in the
rejoinder affidavit, it is stated that the said
information could not be filled in the
application form due to inadvertence as the
application form was filled up by the
petitioner at the cybercafe with the help of
people at the cybercafe, and due to their
mistake, the column about 'pendency of
criminal case' remained unfilled.

27. In the aforesaid factual backdrop,
now this Court proceeds to analyse the
argument raised by the respective counsels.

28. Now, coming to the first
submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner regarding non-adherence to the
procedure provided in the Government
Order dated 28.04.1958, it is pertinent to
reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the
Government Order dated 28.05.1958:-

"3(a). Every direct recruit to any
service
under
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Government will be required to produce:-

(i)...

(ii). Certificates of character
from two persons. The appointing authority
will lay down requirements as to kind of
persons from whom it desires these
certificates.

(b)...

(c). Persons dismissed by the
Central
Government
or
by
a
State
Government will also be deemed to be unfit
for appointment to any service under this
Government.

In the case of direct recruits to
the State Services under the Uttar Pradesh
Government
besides
requiring
the
7 All. Abhishek Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1329
candidates to submit the certificates
mentioned in paragraph 3 (a) above the
appointing authority shall refer all cases
simultaneously to the Deputy Inspector
General of Police, Intelligence and the
District Magistrate [of the home district
and of the district(s) where the candidate
has resided for more than a year within five
years of the date of the inquiry] giving full
particulars about the candidate. The
District Magistrate shall get the reports in
respect
of
the
candidates
from
the
Superintendent of Police who will consult
District Police Records and records of the
Local Intelligence Unit. The District Police
or the District Intelligence Unit shall not
make any enquiries on the spot, but shall
report from their records whether there is
anything against the candidate, but if in
any specific case the District Magistrate, at
the instance of the appointing authority
asks for an enquiry on the spot, the Local
Police or the Local Intelligence Units will
do so and report the result to him. The
District Magistrate shall then report his
own views to the appointing authority.
Where the District Police or the Local
Intelligence Units report adversely about a
candidate, the District Magistrate may give
the candidate a hearing before sending his
report."

29. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has laid much emphasis upon para-3(c) of
the Government Order, extracted above, to
contend that as the Government Order
dated 28.04.1958, which according to
counsel for the petitioner is applicable in
respect of recruitment of High Court
employees,
provides
that
appointing
authority shall simultaneously refer all
cases to the Deputy Inspector General of
Police,
Intelligence
and
the
District
Magistrate (of the home district and district
where the candidate resides for more than a
year within five years of the date of
inquiry) giving full particulars about the
candidate. Thereupon, District Magistrate
shall get the report in respect of the
candidate from the Superintendent of
Police, who shall make necessary inquiries
as detailed in paragraph 3(c), extracted
above, and shall submit a report to the
District Magistrate. The District Magistrate
thereupon shall report his own views to the
appointing authority. It also provides that
where District Police or Local Intelligence
Units report adversely about a candidate,
the District Magistrate may give the
candidate a hearing before sending his
report.

30. Now, the question arises as to
whether
at
the
time
of
document
verification, the procedure contemplated
under
the
Government
Order
dated
28.04.1958 is attracted or not.

31. In the instant case, it is admitted
on record that during the document
verification, an affidavit dated 02.04.2022
has been furnished by the petitioner
disclosing for the first time the details of
two criminal cases pending against him in
the affidavit. The purpose of document
verification is to assess the suitability of a
candidate for the offer of appointment on
the basis of the document and other
information given by the petitioner in the
affidavit. Till the process of document
verification is successfully completed by a
candidate, the stage of issuing of offer of
appointment will not come and as such, at
this stage, there is no question of verifying
the character and antecedents of the
government servant.

32. At the time of document
verification, if it is found that a candidate is
not suitable for the reason that documents
1330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
presented by him/her are not genuine or the
candidate does not possess the requisite
qualification or criminal case pending
against him/her is of serious and grave in
nature falling within the definition of
'moral turpitude', his/her candidature can be
cancelled and stage of offer of appointment
has not yet come. In this respect, it would
be apt to have a glance at the subject of
Government Order dated 28.04.1958 which
reads "Verification of the character and
antecedents of Government servants
before their first appointment".

33. Thus, it is clear from the subject
of the Government Order dated 28.04.1958
that
verification
of
character
and
antecedents of the government servants are
required to be done before their first
appointment. In the instant case, that stage
has not yet come as at the time of document
verification, the petitioner for the first time
disclosed the pendency of two criminal
cases against him, and the Recruitment
Committee considered his candidature and
found
that
he
is
not
suitable
for
appointment, accordingly, it decided to
cancel the candidature of the petitioner, and
resolution of the Recruitment Committee
was duly seen by Hon'ble The Chief Justice
on 30.09.2022.

34. Now coming to the judgment
relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, this Court may note that in the
case of Ajeet Kumar (supra), the
petitioner applied for consideration for the
post of Sub-Inspector on compassionate
ground. The petitioner underwent the
physical test, however, he was not sent for
training which led the petitioner to prefer a
writ petition before this Court, in which
this Court directed the authorities to take a
decision. Pursuant to the judgment of this
Court, the petitioner was non-suited on the
basis of the report/comment of SubInspector
of
Police
Station-Chajlet,
District, Moradabad. This Court found that
character verification of the petitioner for
appointment
was
not
done
as
per
Government
Order
dated
28.04.1958,
consequently, this Court set aside the order
and remanded the matter.

35.

The
aforesaid
case
is
distinguishable from the facts of the present
case since in the case of Ajeet Kumar
(supra), the candidature of the petitioner
was rejected on the basis of some
report/comments
submitted
by
SubInspector
of
Police
Station-
Chajlet,
District Moradabad whereas in the instant
case, that stage has not yet come as during
the document verification, disclosure of
two criminal cases against the petitioner
came into light, and he was non-suited for
appointment as criminal cases pending
against him fall within the purview of
'moral turpitude'.

36. In the case of Shivendra Kumar
Paswan (supra) also, the petitioner's claim
for appointment as Constable was rejected
on the ground of pendency of criminal case
bearing Case Crime No.100 of 2016, under
Sections 354, 323, 504, and 506 I.P.C. In
the said case, a character verification report
was
sought,
and
District
Magistrate
submitted
the
report
of
character
verification adverse to the petitioner. In
such factual backdrop, the petitioner
specifically alleged that the report of the
District Magistrate cannot be read against
him for non-compliance with the provision
of Government Order dated 28.04.1958 as
no opportunity of hearing was granted by
the District Magistrate to the petitioner
before forming an adverse opinion to reject
his candidature. In such view of the fact,
this Court found that since no opportunity
7 All. Abhishek Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1331
of hearing was afforded to the petitioner by
the District Magistrate before forming an
adverse opinion, therefore, no reliance can
be placed on the report of the District
Magistrate, consequently, this Court set
aside the impugned order and remanded the
matter to the authority concerned.

37. The facts of the present case are
different from the facts in the case of
Shivendra
Kumar
Paswan
(supra)
inasmuch as in the present case the stage of
character verification has not yet come.

38. Given the aforesaid discussion,
this Court finds the submission advanced
by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the procedure contemplated under the
Government Order dated 28.04.1958 has
not been followed lacks merit and deserves
to be rejected.

39. Now coming to the second
submission of counsel for the petitioner
that whether the impugned order has been
passed
cursorily
and
without
due
consideration, and whether the pendency of
criminal cases where charges are yet to be
proved against the petitioner can be a
ground to non-suit the petitioner for
appointment; this Court may note that it is
the exclusive domain of the employer to
assess the suitability of the candidate for
the post, and merely because the candidate
has disclosed pendency of criminal case
against him/her, and that he/she has been
acquitted in the criminal case would not
automatically entitle him/her
for the
employment. The only rider on the power
of the employer to assess the suitability of a
candidate is that his decision shall not
reflect arbitrariness or bias or it should not
smack of mala-fide.

40. In this regard, it would be apt to
reproduce paragraph 21 of the judgment of
Apex Court in the case of Union of India
and Others Vs. Methu Meda 2022 (1) SCC
1:-

"21. As discussed hereinabove,
the law is well-settled. If a person is
acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt,
from the charge of an offence involving
moral turpitude or because the witnesses
turned hostile, it would not automatically
entitle him for the employment, that too in
disciplined force. The employer is having a
right to consider his candidature in terms
of the circulars issued by the Screening
Committee. The mere disclosure of the
offences alleged and the result of the trial
is not sufficient. In the said situation, the
employer cannot be compelled to give
appointment to the candidate. Both the
Single Bench and the Division Bench of the
High Court have not considered the said
legal position, as discussed above in the
orders impugned. Therefore, the impugned
orders passed by the learned Single Judge
of the High Court in Writ Petition No.3897
of 2013 and Division Bench in Union of
India Vs. Methu Meda 2013 SCC Online
MP 10701 are not sustainable in law, as
discussed hereinabove."

41. In the case of Imtiyaz Ahmad
Malla Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir
and Others AIR 2023 SC 1308, the Apex
Court has held that the Director General
being the highest functionary in the police
hierarchy was the best judge to consider the
suitability of the petitioner for induction
into the police. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the
said judgement are being reproduced herein
below:-

"13. As regards the suppression
of relevant information or false information
with regard to the criminal prosecution,
arrest or pendency of criminal case against
1332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the candidate, a three-judge Bench of this
Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India
and Others has laid down the precise
guidelines. Para 38.5 thereof reads as
under:

"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."

14. In all the above cases, the
requirement of integrity and high standard
of conduct in police force has been highly
emphasised. The High Court in the
impugned judgement has also elaborately
dealt with each and every aspect of the
issues involved, while upholding the order
of the Single Bench to the effect that the
Director
General
being
the
highest
functionary in the police hierarchy, was the
best judge to consider the suitability of the
petitioner for induction into the police
force. The impugned order being just and
proper, we are not inclined to interfere
with the same in exercise of our jurisdiction
under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India."

42. So from the reading of aforesaid
two judgments, the law on the point that it
is the exclusive domain of the employer to
assess the suitability of a candidate is no
more res-integra.

43. In the instant case, it has come
on record that on disclosing the details
of two criminal cases in the affidavit by
the petitioner, the matter was referred to
the Recruitment Committee who in its
meeting dated 20.09.2022 at Agenda
No.6 resolved to cancel the candidature
of the petitioner. The resolution of the
recruitment committee is reproduced
herein below:-

"The
candidate
has
been
charged under sections 420, 467, 468,
471, 120B of I.P.C. and 66B of I.T. Act.
The offence of the candidate fall under
purview of moral turpitude as such he
can not be offered appointment and his
candidature is cancelled."

44. The aforesaid resolution was
duly seen by Hon'ble The Chief Justice
on 30.09.2022. Thus, from the aforesaid
fact, it is evident that the decision to
cancel the candidature of the petitioner
is deemed to be of Hon'ble The Chief
Justice and he, being the Head of the
Institution, has the power to assess the
suitability of employees in the High
Court.

45. At this point, it is pertinent to
mention that a candidate seeking an
appointment in the High Court should
be of impeccable character and high
integrity, and his antecedents should be
clean. The High Court is a Court of
record and if a person whose integrity is
doubtful or his antecedents are not clean
is appointed, that can damage the
institution inasmuch as if the Court
records are misplaced or tampered with
that would cause immense prejudice to
the
litigants
and
also
shake
the
confidence of the public in the judicial
system which would ultimately result in
serious damage to the prestige of the
institution.

46. The submission that impugned
order has been passed cursorily in the
opinion of the court is also misconceived as
the
resolution
of
the
Recruitment
Committee clearly discloses the application
of mind in passing the resolution in
7 All. Abhishek Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1333
deciding that the charges against the
petitioner fall within the purview of 'moral
turpitude' which resolution was duly seen
by
Hon'ble
The
Chief
Justice
on
30.09.2022.

47. In Case Crime No.0172 of 2019,
the allegation against the petitioner is that
in the RPF CBT Online Exam conducted at
Gyan Bharti College of Education opposite
Nalanda Town, Shamshabad Road, Agra,
the petitioner entered into the said center
and on the basis of some forged identitycard, he appeared in the examination for
some other candidate. The allegation in the
said F.I.R. is that of impersonation, and
accordingly, he was charged under Sections
420, 467, and 468 of I.P.C.

48. In Case Crime No.0389 of 2021,
the petitioner has again been charged with
the allegation of impersonation as he
appeared for two candidates namely Ram
Prakash and Pankaj in a competitive
examination for the post of Constable in the
Police Department. Consequently, he was
charged under Section 420, 467, 468, 471,
472 & 120B I.P.C., Section 66 of the
Information Technology Act, 2008, and
Section 7 of the Examination Rules, 1982.

49. Now, the Court considers whether
the aforesaid charges against the petitioner
come within the purview of 'moral turpitude; it
would be apt to have a glance at the meaning
of 'Moral Turpitude' as defined in the
following dictionaries:-

"Moral Turpitude- "The act of
baseness, vileness, or the depravity in the
private and social duties which man owes to
his fellow man, or to society in general,
contrary to accepted and customary rule of
right and duty between man and man."
(Black's Law Dictionary) (6th Edn.).

Moral Turpitude-"An act of
baseness, vileness or depravity in the private
and social duties which a man owes to his
fellow men or to society in general, contrary to
the accepted and customary rule of right and
duty between man and man" (Bouvier's Law
Dictionary).

Moral Turpitude- "Bad faith,
bad
repute,
corruption,
defilement,
delinquency, discredit, dishonour, shame,
guilt, knavery, misdoing, perversion, shame,
vice, wrong." (Burton Legal Thesaurus)"

50. At this stage, it would also be
apposite to refer few judgments of Apex Court
which will be helpful in the facts of the present
case.

51. In Allahabad Bank and Another Vs.
Deepak Kumar Bhola 1997 (4) SSC 1, the Apex
Court upheld the suspension order passed against
an employee during the pendency of criminal trial
for an offence involving 'moral turpitude' where
the employee was charged for the offence of
committing forgery and wrongfully withdrawal of
money which he was not entitled to withdraw.
Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said judgement are
reproduced herein below:-

"8. What is an offence involving
"moral turpitude" must depend upon the
facts of each case. But whatever may be the
meaning which may be given to the term
"moral turpitude" it appears to us that one
of the most serious offences involving
"moral turpitude" would be where a person
employed in a banking company dealing
with money of the general public, commits
forgery and wrongfully withdraws money
which he is not entitled to withdraw.

9. This Court in Pawan Kumar
Vs. State of Haryana and Another (1996) 4
SCC 17 dealt with the question as to what
1334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is the meaning of expression "moral
turpitude" and it was observed as follows:-

"Moral
turpitude"
is
an
expression which is used in legal as also
societal parlance to describe conduct
which is inherently base, vile, depraved or
having any connection showing depravity".

This expression has been more
elaborately explained in Baleshwar Singh
Vs. District Magistrate And Collector
Banaras AIR 1959 All. 71 where it was
observed as follows:

"The expression "moral turpitude'
is not defined anywhere. But it means
anything done c
ontrary
to
justice,
honesty, modesty or good morals. It implies
depravity and wickedness of character or
disposition of the person charged with the
particular conduct. Every false statement
made by a person may not be moral
turpitude, but it would be so if it discloses
vileness or depravity in the doing of any
private and social duty which a person
owes to his fellowmen or to the society in
general. If therefore the individual charged
with a certain conduct owes a duty, either
to another individual or to the society in
general, to act in a specific manner or not
to so act and he still acts contrary to it and
does so knowingly, his conduct must be
held to be due to vileness and depravity. It
will be contrary to accepted customary rule
and duty between man and man"

52. In the case of State Bank of India
and Others Vs. P. Soupramaniane 2019 (18)
SCC 135, the Apex Court after considering
the definition of 'moral turpitude' laid down
the tests which can be applied for judging
whether an offence involves 'moral turpitude'
or not. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said
judgement are reproduced herein below:-

"12. There is no doubt that there is
an obligation on the management of the Bank
to discontinue the services of an employee
who has been convicted by a criminal court
for an offence involving moral turpitude.
Though every offence is a crime against the
society,
discontinuance
from
service
according to the Banking Regulation Act can
be only for committing an offence involving
moral
turpitude.
Acts
which
disclose
depravity and wickedness of character can be
categorized as offences involving moral
turpitude. Whether an offence involves moral
turpitude or not depends upon the facts and
the circumstances of the case.

13. Ordinarily, the tests that can be
applied for judging an offence involving
moral turpitude are:-

(a) Whether the act leading to a
conviction was such as could shock the moral
conscience or society in general;

(b) Whether the motive which led
to the act was a base one, and

(c). Whether on account of the act
having been committed the perpetrators
could be considered to be of a depraved
character or a person who was to be looked
down upon by the society."

53. In the light of principles laid down
by the Apex Court in the aforesaid
judgments, this Court proceeds to consider
whether charges against the petitioner in two
criminal cases involve 'moral turpitude' or
not.

54. Now, the charge against the
petitioner in two criminal cases is that he
impersonated some other person to appear
in the competitive examination to help
them. The said act of the petitioner, if leads
7 All. Abhishek Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1335
to a conviction, would shock the moral
conscience of society in general; it is
obvious that the motive which led to the
commission of offence alleged in two F.I.R
against the petitioner was a base one; and
the perpetrator of such an offence will be a
person of depraved character and a person
who will be looked down upon by the
society. Thus, the allegation against the
petitioner satisfies the three parameters
recorded in paragraph 13 of the judgement
of
Apex
Court
in
the
case
of
Soupramaniane (supra) to fall within the
ambit of 'moral turpitude'.

55.