# Ashok Kumar v. D.I.G. C.R.P.F. Group Centre, Allahabad and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 2 ILRA 642
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-12-16
- **Case number:** THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL Special Appeal No. 335 of 2005
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashok-kumar-v-d-i-g-c-r-p-f-group-centre-allahabad-and-others-40564
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Central Reserve Police Force Act 1949Section 11 (1) read with C.R.P.C. Rules
1955- rule-27-Dismissal from Service- on
ground of false declaration-given in
para-12-A of the form-regarding criminal
activities-On
verification
petitioner
found involved in criminal case under
section 366/376 I.P.C.- he was released
on bail by the javehill court at the age of
14 years- surrender before the court-
amounts taking the accused on judicial
custody held false declaration given in
verification form dismissal held proper.

Held: Para 18

Thus, we are of the view that the
appellant is guilty of suppression of
material fact i .e. suppressio veri and
suggestio falsi which in view of the
declaration made in verification form
rendered
him
liable
dismissal
from
service by the competent authority.
Case law discussed:
2003 (3) SCC 437
2005 (2) SCC 742
2003 ( c ) 482 BEC- 441
2003 ALJ-2962
1996 (11) SCC-605
2001 (U) E.S.C.-1837
2005 (7) SCC-177
2005 (11) 482 BEC 1684
2005 (2) 482 BEC-1682
2003 IPC BEC (1) 269

## Text

642 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
20. In view of the aforesaid fact the
controversy regarding an order passing
the compulsory retirement cannot be said
to be illegal, malafide, if the same has
been passed by the competent authority
after scrutinizing the entire service record
of an employee. As mentioned above, the
Court has perused the complete service
record of the petitioner, therefore, the
contention of the petitioner to this effect
cannot be accepted that the order of
compulsory
retirement
against
the
petitioner is in any way illegal, punitive
and has been passed without taking into
consideration the performance of the
petitioner.

21. The writ petition is devoid of
merit and is hereby dismissed. No order
as to costs.

 Petition dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.RAFAT ALAM
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL

Special Appeal No. 335 of 2005

Ashok Kumar

...Appellant
Versus
D.I.G., C.R.P.F. Group Centre, phaphamau,
Allahabad and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ranjit Saxena
Sri Shekhar Srivastava
Sri B.L. Verma

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri K.C. Sinha, S.S.C.
Sri S.F.A. Naqvi
S.C.

Central Reserve Police Force Act 1949Section 11 (1) read with C.R.P.C. Rules
1955- rule-27-Dismissal from Service- on
ground of false declaration-given in
para-12-A of the form-regarding criminal
activities-On
verification
petitioner
found involved in criminal case under
section 366/376 I.P.C.- he was released
on bail by the javehill court at the age of
14 years- surrender before the court-
amounts taking the accused on judicial
custody held false declaration given in
verification form dismissal held proper.

Held: Para 18

Thus, we are of the view that the
appellant is guilty of suppression of
material fact i .e. suppressio veri and
suggestio falsi which in view of the
declaration made in verification form
rendered
him
liable
dismissal
from
service by the competent authority.
Case law discussed:
2003 (3) SCC 437
2005 (2) SCC 742
2003 ( c ) 482 BEC- 441
2003 ALJ-2962
1996 (11) SCC-605
2001 (U) E.S.C.-1837
2005 (7) SCC-177
2005 (11) 482 BEC 1684
2005 (2) 482 BEC-1682
2003 IPC BEC (1) 269

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. This special appeal has been filed
against the judgment dated 16.2.2005
dismissing appellant's writ petition No.
5718 of 2005.

2. In pursuance to the advertisement
dated for the post of constable in C.R.P.F.
the appellant was selected and appointed
by order dated 19.4.2001. Thereafter he
was required to fill in a verification form
which he submitted on 13.6.2001. In para-
' 12A of the said form the following
information was required to be furnished:
2 All] Ashok Kumar V. D.I.G. C.R.P.F. Group Centre, Allahabad and others
643
"Have you ever been arrested,
prosecuted, kept under detention or bound
down/fined, convicted by a court of law
for any offence or debarred/ disqualified
by any Public Service Commission from
appearing at its examination/selection, or
debarred
from
taking
any
examination/rusticated by any University
or
any
other
education
authority/
institution?"

3. The appellant replied the said
column by mentioning 'no'. subsequently
vide the District Magistrate, Allahabad
letter dated 13.7.2004, it came to the
notice of the respondents that the
appellant was involved and prosecuted in
a criminal case. F.I.R. was lodged against
the appellant on 10.2.1994 and registered
as case Crime No. 33 of 1994 under
section 366, 376 I.P.C. Police after
making
investigation
submitted
a
chargesheet.
The
appellant
was
prosecuted in Crime Case No. 260 of
1999 in the Juvenile Court, Allahabad.
The case was registered by the Court on
10.10.1998. At the time when the
selection and appointment was made,
criminal prosecution was going on. It
appears that the witness Km. Sheela
deposed her statement on 8.11.2002
wherein she retracted from her earlier
statement and denied that the appellant
committed any rape on her. Ultimately the
appellant was acquitted in the aforesaid
case by the Court of A.C.J.M vide order
dated 11.10.2002.

4. However, the prosecution was
going on in 2001 when the appellant
submitted his verification denying that he
was ever arrested, prosecuted, kept under
detention or punished/ fined/ convicted by
court of
law for any offence or
disqualified by any court from appearing
it examination etc. and thus the said
information furnished by the appellant
was false and therefore, disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against the
appellant. A chargesheet was issued and
after holding an enquiry, inquiry report
was submitted holding appellant guilty of
making false declaration. Accordingly the
Commander
23rd
Battalion,
CR.P.F.
passed order dated 18.1.2005 dismissing
appellant from service by exercising his
powers
under
section
11(1)
of
CR.P.F.Act,1949 read with Rule 27(A) of
CR.P.F. Rules 1955.

5. The appellant approached this
court by means of writ petition No. 5718
assailing dismissal order contending that
since he was acquitted in the criminal
case on the date when departmental
chargesheet was issued and the impugned
order was passed no criminal case was
pending against him, hence the order
passed by the authorities is illegal. Writ
petition has been dismissed by the
Hon'ble Single Judge. Hence this special
appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the
appellant contended that there was no
concealment of fact on the part of the
appellant in as much as at the time of
appointment on 19.4.2001 he was not
aware of the fact that a criminal case was
pending against him, since he had not
received
any
notice
or
information
regarding the said case. Hence, there was
no
occasion
of
giving
any
false
information on his part. He brought to the
notice of this court order sheet of the trial
court in criminal case No. 260 of 1999
showing that after the case was registered
on 10.10.1998, the summons were issued
vide order dated 10.12.1998 but he got
information later on since he appeared in
644 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
the trial court only on 18.1.2002,
23.11.2001, 14.12.2001 and 21.12.2001.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that at the time of alleged offence
having been committed, his age was only
14 years. The appellant neither was
arrested nor surrendered for bail. Thus it
can not be said that he was ever arrested.
Learned counsel for the appellant also
submitted that in any case once the
criminal case resulted in acquittal, his
dismissal
from
service
was
totally
unwarranted and illegal. In support of this
submission, he relied upon the following
judgments of this court as well as Apex
Court:

1. 2003(3) S.C.C. 437Kendriya Vidya
Sangthan Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav.
2. 2005(2) S.C.C. 742 Secretary Delhi
Development
Authority
Vs.
B.
Chinmaynaidu.
3. 2003(1) UPLBEC 441 Bheekham
Singh Vs. Union of India.
4. 2003 A.L.J 2962 Lal Ji Pandey Vs.
Director General.C.R.P.F.

7. Sri K.C. Sinha, learned Assistant
Solicitor
General
appearing
for
respondents No. 1 and 4, however
submitted
that
after
selection
and
appointment in the force, the appellant
was
required
to
furnish
certain
information in the form of 'Verification'
as required under Rule 34(b) of C.R.P.F.
Rules.
The
said
verification
was
submitted by the appellant on 13.6.2001
wherein column No. 12(a) was answered
in negative. However on verification from
District
Magistrate,
Allahabad,
he
informed vide letter dated 13.7.2004 that
a criminal case No. 33 of 1994 under
section 366, 376 was registered against
the appellant. On the basis of the
aforesaid information the matter was
further enquired and after collecting the
details of the prosecution a chargesheet
(Annexure-4) was issued to the appellant.
A disciplinary enquiry was conducted, the
appellant was found guilty of furnishing
false information and submitting false
verification. In para-l of the verification
Form, the learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that it was already
mentioned
that
furnishing
of
false
information or submission of any factual
information in the verification Form
would be a disqualification for retention
of candidate in employment under the
government. Accordingly on the basis of
disciplinary enquiry report, the order
dismissing the appellant from the service
has rightly been passed by the competent
authority. He submitted that writ petition
has rightly been dismissed by the Hon'ble
Single Judge and it does not require any
interference in appeal.

We have heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.

8. The first question to be decided is
whether appellant furnished any false or
suppressed information in his verification
Form. He claimed that at the time of
appointment or submitting verification
Form he was not aware of the pendency
of the criminal case, as he had not
received any information about the same.
He further submits that so far as the arrest
is concerned, he never surrendered for
bail nor was ever arrested and therefore in
this regard also no false information was
furnished by the appellant, hence it can
not be said that he was guilty of making
false verification. However we found that
the appellant neither in the affidavit filed
in support of the stay application nor in
the supplementary affidavit which he has
filed has stated anywhere as to on which
2 All] Ashok Kumar V. D.I.G. C.R.P.F. Group Centre, Allahabad and others
645
date he received notice/summons or
information regarding the criminal case
registered against him in pursuance to the
chargesheet submitted by the Police.
Vague averments have been made by the
appellant that he never applied for bail
nor surrendered for bail and never came
to know about the pending criminal case
as evident from para 23 of the affidavit
which reads as under:

"23....the fact is that there has been
no information of the petitioner of
Criminal case No. 260 of 1999 registered
at
Police
Station
Tharwai,
District
Allahabad
and
the
question
of
concealment of fact would have come had
the petitioner got the information. And
thus in the instant case the allegations of
the respondents about the concealment of
facts was totally incorrect and baseless
and therefore the order of the dismissal
was bad in law. It may also be noted here
that the petitioner never applied for Bail
and at the time of alleged offence the age
of the petitioner was only 14 years and
neither and petitioner surrendered for Bail
nor the petitioner has ever come to know
about the Criminal Case pending against
his and petitioner came to know about the
Criminal Case only after the appointment
in C.R.P.F. and by that time the petitioner
was already appointed..... "

9. The learned counsel for the
appellant admitted that he surrendered
before the Trial Court and was released
on bail on the same date by the Juvenile
Court, Allahabad. It may be true that at
the time when F.I.R. was lodged against
the appellant he was only 14 years of age,
but after seven years when he appeared
for the selection for appointment to the
post of constable in C.R.P.F. he was 21
years of age and well aware of the
pendency of the Criminal Case and its
consequences. The fact that appellant was
released on bail itself shows that he
surrendered and taken in judicial custody,
whereafter released on bail by the court
may be on the same day. Surrender before
the court amounts to taking accused in
judicial Gustody. Only thereafter, the
question of releasing the accused on bail
would
arise.
Clause
12-A
of
the
verification Form is wide enough to cover
all aspects of the criminal matter and
there is nothing to show that the appellant
in the year 2001 was not aware that a
criminal case was registered against him
in which he was released on bail and has
not been discharged or acquitted till that
date. It was incumbent upon him to
furnish information in positive in clause
12-A of the verification roll. However his
reply in negative shows made him guilty
of concealment of relevant information.
The
appellant
was
appointed
in
disciplined force and is expected to
maintain highest standard of moral and
character. He is supposed to possess a
character above board since his services
are to be utilized for maintaining law and
order.

10. It is a matter of common
knowledge that when the appointment to a
public office is made, the character and
antecedents of a person, who is to be
appointed, are verified to judge his
suitability to the post. It is more so
important when the appointment is to be
made to uniformed cadre i.e. disciplined
force.

In the case of Delhi Administration
through its Chief Secretary and others
Vs. Sushil Kumar, 1996 (11) SCC 605,
the Apex Court observed as follows:
646 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
"It is seen that verification of the
character and antecedents is one of the
important criteria to test whether the
selected candidate is suitable to a post
under the State. Though he was found
physically fit, passed the written test and
interview and was provisionally selected,
on account of his antecedent record, the
appointing authority found it not desirable
to appoint a person of such record as a
Constable to the disciplined force. The
view taken by the appointing authority in
the background of the case cannot be said
to be unwarranted."

11. Whenever a person is appointed
in the Government service some times he
himself is required to furnish information
regarding his character and antecedents,
and
some
times
besides
his
own
information, it is also verified through
administrative
authorities
of
the
concerned area. In the present case after
selection
and
appointment
of
the
petitioner, he was required to furnish
information regarding his character and
antecedents with a clear warning if any
information is found to be incorrect, it
may
render
him
disqualified
for
employment.
Undaunted
with
this
caution, the appellant decided to furnish
wrong information though he was not
only
arrested
but
was
also
being
prosecuted for serious offences under
Section 366 and 376 LP.C. He concealed
the said information and made a wrong
declaration.

Learned counsel for the petitioner,
however, contended that he was not aware
of the pendency of the criminal case at the
time of his appointment and further since
he was not arrested by Police at any point
of time, therefore, he did not furnish any
wrong information. It is admitted by him
that he was released on bail when he
surrendered before the Magistrate. The
requirement
under
clause
12
in
verification
form covers very wide
information in respect of any criminal
matter if any, initiated against an
individual. The question whether he was
arrested or not does not mean that only he
was to be arrested by the Police. When he
was enlarged on bail by the Magistrate
obviously and the natural consequence
that he was taken into custody by the
Court and that is one of the form of arrest
of a person. Further, the petitioner was
appointed on 19th April, 2001 but he
filled in verification clause on 13th June,
2001. The order sheet of the trial court
which has been filed by the petitioner
shows that criminal case was registered
against the petitioner on 10th October,
1998 and the summon was issued to the
accused on 10th December, 1998 and
again on 7th June, 1999. On 7th January,
2002 the order sheet mentions as herein
under:
"07.01.2000.
Called out. Accused about under
surending
dated 7.3.2000 for app
J. M."

12. This shows that the petitioner
had received the summon at least on or
before 7th January, 2000. The petitioner
has also not stated any where that he did
not receive summon on or before filling
the verification form. The only averments
made by the petitioner in paragraph 23 of
the writ petition is that at the time of
appointment on 19th April, 2001 he did
not have the information of the pendency
of the aforesaid case. More interesting
thing is that the facts stated in the said
application are not verified by filing any
valid affidavit in as much as the affidavit
2 All] Ashok Kumar V. D.I.G. C.R.P.F. Group Centre, Allahabad and others
647
annexed in support of the aforesaid
application is not complete and the
paragraphs are not filled in the original
affidavit. Therefore, in the eyes of law,
there is no affidavit filed by the petitioner.
Even otherwise, the petitioner has no
where stated and has placed anything on
record to show that he did not have any
information about the aforesaid case till
the date he filled in verification form and
has also not stated as to when he received
information. Further regarding his arrest,
the petitioner was well aware that he was
released on bail al]d, therefore, as to why
he gave a wrong information in column
no.12 which is very widely worded. No
explanation
is
forthcoming:In
these
circumstances,
the
contents
of
the
petitioner that he was not aware of the
criminal case is neither factual correct not
can otherwise be believable.

13. The second question is the effect
of such wrong declaration which has to be
considered by this Court.

A Full Bench of the Rajasthan High
Court in the case of Dharam Pal Singh
Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2001 (4),
Education
Service
Cases
1837
considered the following issues:

(i) Whether the fact that a candidate was
prosecuted
or
subjected
to
investigation on a criminal charge is
a material fact, suppression of which
would entitle an employer to deny
employment to a candidate on that
ground?
(ii) Whether the ultimate acquittal of a
candidate who was prosecuted on a
criminal charge would condone or
wash
out
the consequences of
suppression of the fact the he was
prosecuted ?
(iii) Whether the suppression of the
material fact would not by itself
disentitle a candidate from being
appointed in service?

The aforesaid questions were replied
in paragraph 26 as hereunder:
"In the light of the facts stated and
the discussion made above, we answer the
questions 1 to 3 aforementioned as
follows:
1. That a candidate was prosecuted or
subjected to investigation on a
criminal charge is a material fact.
suppression of which would entitle
an employer to deny employment to
a candidate on that ground.
2. That
ultimate
acquittal
of
a
candidate, who was prosecuted on a
criminal charge, would not condone
or wash out the consequences of
suppression of the fact that he was
prosecuted.
3. That suppression of material fact
would by itself, disentitle a candidate
from being appointed in service.

14. Very recently in the case of
Andra
Pradesh
Public
Service
Commission
Vs.
Koneti
Venkateswarulu and others, 2005 (7)
SCC 177, following the judgment of the
Apex Court in Ram Ratan Yadav' case
(supra), it was held as under:

"at no point of time did the first
respondent
inform
the
appellant
Commission that there was a bona fide
mistake by him in filling up the
application form, or that there was
inadvertence on his part in doing so. It is
only when the appellant Commission
discovered by itself that there was
suppressio veri and suggestio falsi on the
part of the first respondent in the
648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
application that the respondent came
forward with an excuse that it was due to
inadvertence.
That
there
has
been
suppressio
veri
and
suggestio
falsi
incontrovertible. The explanation that it
was
irrelevant
or
emanated
from
inadvertence, is unacceptable. In our
view, the appellant was justified in
relying upon the ration of Kendriya
Vidyalaya
Sangathan
(supra)
and
contending that a person who indulges in
such suppressio veri and suggestio falsi
and obtains employment by false pretence
does not deserve any public employment.
We completely endorse this view.

15. The Apex Court in the case of
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (Supra)
considered almost similar case where
Ram Ratan Yadav was selected for the
post of Physical Education teacher and
was
issued
appointment
order
on
16.12.1997. He was required to file
attestation form and in column 12(1) of
the said form, the information was
required as to whether any criminal case
was pending against him, which he
replied by mentioning 'No'. Subsequently,
it was disclosed that a criminal case was
actually pending against him under
Sections 323, 341, 294, 506-B read with
Section 34 I.P.C. and on the ground of
suppression of factual information, his
services were terminated vide order dated
7th April/8th April, 1999. In the said case
also, subsequently the said criminal case
was withdrawn by the Government and in
these circumstances, his writ petition was
allowed by the High Court. Reversing the
judgment of the High Court, the Apex
Court held as hereunder:

"The object of requiring information
in columns 12 and 13 of the attestation
form and certification thereafter by the
candidate was to ascertain and verify the
character and antecedents to judge his
suitability to continue in service. A
candidate having suppressed material
information
and/or
giving
false
information cannot claim right to continue
in service. The employer having regard to
the nature of the employment and all
other aspects had the discretion to
terminate his services, which is made
expressly clear in para 9 of the offer of
appointment. The purpose of seeking
information as per columns 12 and 13 was
not to find out either the nature or gravity
of the offence or the result of a criminal
case ultimately. The information in the
said columns was sought with a view to
judge the character and antecedents of the
respondent to continue in service or not.
The High Court, in our view, has failed to
see this aspect of the matter. It went
wrong in saying that the criminal case had
been subsequently withdrawn and that the
offences, in which the respondent was
alleged to have been involved, were also
not of serious nature. In the present case
the respondent was to serve as a Physical
Education
Teacher
in
Kendriya
Vidyalaya. The character, conduct and
antecedents of a teacher will have some
impact on the minds of the students of
impressionable
age.
The
appellants
having considered all the aspects passed
the order of dismissal of the respondent
from service. The Tribunal after due
consideration rightly recorded a finding of
fact in upholding the order of dismissal
passed by the appellants. The High Court
was clearly in error in upsetting the order
of the Tribunal. The High Court was
again not right in taking note of the
withdrawal of the case by the State
Government and that the case was not of a
serious nature to set aside the order of the
Tribunal on that ground as well."
2 All] Ashok Kumar V. D.I.G. C.R.P.F. Group Centre, Allahabad and others
649
This judgment relied by the learned
counsel for appellant in fact supports the
respondents and is against the appellant.

16. The next case relied by the
appellant Secretary, Department of Home
Secretary, A. P. and others Vs. B.
Chinnam Naidu (Supra) and on its
strength he contended that even if he
mentioned a wrong fact in the verification
form, since he was ultimately acquitted in
the criminal case, therefore, his dismissal
from service is illegal. The contention is
wide off the mark. The facts of the case of
B. Chinnam Naidu are totally different. In
the said case column 12 of the attestation
form was in the following words:

"Column 12- Have you ever been
convicted by a court of law or detained
under
any
State/Central
preventive
detention laws for any offence whether
such conviction sustained in court of
appeal or set aside by the appellate court
if appealed against."

17. The aforesaid column clearly
shows that the candidate was required to
indicate as to whether he was ever
convicted by the court of law or detained
under any State or Central Preventive
Law for any offence whether such
conviction sustained in court of appeal or
set aside by the appellate court if appealed
against. Candidate was not required to
indicate as to whether he has been
arrested in any case or as to whether any
case was pending. The Apex court in the
light of the language of column 12 of the
attestation form as involved in Naidu's
case, thus noted that the candidate since
was not required to indicate his arrest or
pendency of criminal case, hence Naidu
by giving information in negative did not
conceal or suppress any material fact
since neither he was arrested nor any
criminal case was pending against him.
The observation of the Apex Court
distinguishing the said case is evident
from the following:

"There was no specific requirement
to mention as to whether any case is
pending or whether the applicant had been
arrested. In view of the specific language
so far as column 12 is concerned the
respondent cannot be found guilty of any
suppression." (Para-g)

18. However, in the case in hand,
column 12-A of the verification clause is
very wide as it not only required the
candidate to inform as to whether he was
convicted by court of law etc. but it also
required to disclose as to whether he was
ever arrested, prosecution, kept under
detention or bound down/fine, convicted
etc. The fact that the petitioner was
released on bail by the Magistrate
pursuant to the lodging of the first
information report under Section 366 /376
LP.C. itself was an information which
ought to have been disclosed in column
12-A, since it is covered by the
information required to be furnished by
the candidate. Thus, we are of the view
that the appellant is guilty of suppression
of material fact i .e. suppressio veri and
suggestio falsi which in view of the
declaration made in verification form
rendered him liable dismissal from
service by the competent authority.

19. Learned counsel for the
respondents has referred to two judgments
of this Court rendered by an Hon'ble
Single Judge, reported in 2005 (2)
UPLBEC 1682, Ramesh Chandra Saroj
Vs. Union of India and others; and a
Division Bench judgment in the case of
650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
Ajay
Kumar
Vs.
Officer
Incharge,
Samyukt
Karyalaya,
Firozabad
and
others, reported in 2005 (2) UPLBEC
page 1684.

20. In the case of Ramesh Chandra
Saroj (Supra), a similar controversy
involved wherein due to furnishing of
wrong information, the petitioner, who
was appointed as Constable in CRPF, was
terminated. Following the judgment of the
Apex Court in Ram Ratan Yadav and
Delhi Administration case, the Hon'ble
Single Judge upheld the aforesaid action
of the authorities and dismissed the writ
petition. We are agree with the view taken
by the Hon'ble Single Judge in Ram Ratan
Yadav's case.

21. In the later case one Ajay Kumar
was appointed on probation, although, he
was undergoing trial under Section 302
I.P.c. He was terminated by an order of
termination simplicitor. The Division
Bench while dismissing his appeal in
paragraph 12 observed as under:

"In this case the respondents cannot
be visited with any such adverse decision
or finding. They had on their hands a
probationer who was under trial on a very
serious criminal charge, it was to within
their power to decide the criminal case or
to have it decided within any reasonable
time. They had to make a choice in 1991:
whether that choice was right or wrong,
would never be before the Writ Court: the
only point before the Writ Court would be
whether that choice was reasonable.
Nobody can today doubt that the choice
was reasonable. It was quite open to the
respondents, as it would be open to any
public respondents, at any time, not to
make
a
probationer
a
permanent
employee, when it becomes known that
he is facing a very serious criminal
charge, from which he might or might not
be acquitted."

22. The last submission made by the
learned counsel for the appellant is that
the dismissal of service is very serious
punishment imposed upon him since fault
on the part of the appellant regarding non
furnishing of correct information cannot
be considered to be such a serious offence
warranting dismissal from service. In
support of the above contention, he has
relied upon the judgment of the apex
court in the case of State of U. P. Vs.
Rama Kant Yadav, reported in 2003 (1)
UPLBEC 269. We are surprised to see
that the aforesaid judgment does not help
the appellant at all and it appears that the
photo copy of the aforesaid judgment has
been made available to us by the learned
counsel
for
the
appellant
without
checking it. The apex court in the case of
Rama Kant allowed the appeal of the
State and the judgment of the High Court
was set aside which had interfered with
the punishment inflicted upon Rama Kant
on the ground of being disproportionate.
The apex court held that the charges are
quite grave and need no interference from
the court. In the present case, the Apex
court in Ram Ratan Yadav's case and
Andra
Pradesh
Public
Service
commission (supra) has also upheld the
termination
and
dismissal
of
the
employees for the "suppressio veri and
suggestio falsi" and in the light of the
aforesaid judgment, it cannot be said that
the order passed by the authorities
disproportionate to the gravity of the
charge and require any interference from
this Court. This submission thus is also
negated. No other argument has been
advanced before us.
2 All] S.N. Vishwakarma and others V. State of U.P. and others
651
23. Thus, we are of the view that the
Hon'ble
Single
Judge
has
rightly
dismissed the writ petition of the
appellant and the judgment under appeal
needs no interference.

24. In the circumstances, the appeal
fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as
to costs.

 Appeal dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.03.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.35289 of 2001

S.N. Vishwakarma & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri L.C. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vijendra Singh Yadav
S.C.

Constitution of India Art. 226- Salary
fixation
-work
charge
employeesregularised between 1996 to December
97-revise pay scale salary fixed on the
basis of G.O. 23.12.97 and 31.12.97-all
the petitioner given salary benefits-by
subsequent G.O. 26.8.99-by order dated
20.9.01 again fixation made denying the
benefit of 40% D.A, interim reliefs etc.-
held-the authorities can not recover the
excess amount on two counts firatly
when fixation made-only G.O. 31.12.97
was in existence-secondly No case of mis
representation on part of Petitionersthirdly before impugned fixation no
notice or opportunity given-impugned
order
quashed-with
consequential
direction.

Held: Para 8

I have perused the government order
dated 26.8.1999. The said government
order provides for maximum ceiling of
salary of work charge employees. No
other
specific
provision
in
the
government order is made that work
charge employee shall not be entitled for
the dearness allowance or interim relief
or their salary shall be fixed in a
particular manner. The counsel for the
respondent
has
submitted
that
the
government
order
dated
23.12.1997
specifically provided that 40% of salary
will be added with regard to government
employees
which
provisions
is
not
available for the work charge employee
as
per
government
order
dated
26.8.1999. There is no specific mention
in
the
government
order
dated
26.8.1999 that work charge employees
shall not be entitled for 40% of salary.
However, without entering into any
further discussion on the said issue there
are two reasons on which I am satisfied
that respondents are not entitled for
recovery
of
any
amount
from
the
petitioner. Firstly, the government order
dated 26.8.1999 was issued subsequent
to the fixation which was already made
on 28.1.1998. The dispute of payment of
salary in the present case relates only to
the
period
dated
1.1.1996
till
regularisation
of
the
petitioners
i.e
between 1996 to 31.12.1997. At the time
when fixation of the petitioners was
made
the
government
order
dated
23.12.1997 and dated 31.12.1997 were
the only government order providing for
fixation and the salary of the petitioners
was fixed in accordance with the said
government order. There is no case of
any mis-representation on part of the
petitioners in getting their salary fixed.
Hence, no recovery can be made from
the amount which was already paid to be
petitioners in pursuance of the fixation
made by the Executive Engineer dated
28.1.1998.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1994 SC-2480 SC
W.P. No. 7201 of 04 decided on 5.6.05