# Balavant Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 861
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-05
- **Case number:** Writ A No.652 of 2019
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/balavant-singh-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49280
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law - Service Law - Discharge from
service - suppression of information
regarding
criminal
case
/
false
declaration in verification affidavit -
mere
suppression
of
material/false
information in a given case does not
mean that the employer can arbitrarily
discharge/terminate the employee from
service (Para 11)

Petitioner applied for the post of Constable
(Civil Police) & submitted an affidavit stating
that no criminal case was registered against
him & no police investigation was pending -
on enquiry it was found that two criminal
cases were indeed against the petitioner, as a
result, petitioner was not sent for training -
petitioner learnt about the criminal cases only
when he inquired from the authorities about
the reason for not being sent for training
after being selected - Held - Petitioner's
selection was rejected without proper inquiry
as to whether the petitioner had knowledge
about the criminal cases pending against him
and he deliberately concealed the same - also
no notice and opportunity of hearing was
given to him - Additionally, both criminal
cases against the petitioner had already been
quashed
-
matter
sent
back
for
reconsideration based on the law established
in the Avtar Singh and Pawan Kumar cases by
the Supreme Court (Para 13, 14)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All. Balavant Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
861
the seat of the arbitration proceedings.
Issues b, c, and d consequently are also
decided in favour of the petitioner and it is
held that failure to specifically mention a
Seat of Arbitration and participation in
Arbitration proceedings at New Delhi by
the Railways without any protest shall be
considered as determination of the Venue
of arbitration as also the Seat, giving
exclusive jurisdiction to the Courts at New
Delhi to supervise the Arbitral proceedings
including any attack on the Award.

98. The order impugned dated
12.12.2019 is held to be vitiated and liable
to be set aside. The Commercial Court at
Lucknow has entertained the Section 34
Application without jurisdiction. Such
inherent lack of jurisdiction makes the
proceedings before it also liable to be set
aside.

99. This petition stands allowed.

100. The order impugned dated
12.12.2019 is set aside. Consequences to
follow.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 861
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No.652 of 2019

Balavant Singh Yadav ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Siddhartha Srivastava, Mrs. Kamla
Singh, Sri Satyendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Service Law - Discharge from
service - suppression of information
regarding
criminal
case
/
false
declaration in verification affidavit -
mere
suppression
of
material/false
information in a given case does not
mean that the employer can arbitrarily
discharge/terminate the employee from
service (Para 11)

Petitioner applied for the post of Constable
(Civil Police) & submitted an affidavit stating
that no criminal case was registered against
him & no police investigation was pending -
on enquiry it was found that two criminal
cases were indeed against the petitioner, as a
result, petitioner was not sent for training -
petitioner learnt about the criminal cases only
when he inquired from the authorities about
the reason for not being sent for training
after being selected - Held - Petitioner's
selection was rejected without proper inquiry
as to whether the petitioner had knowledge
about the criminal cases pending against him
and he deliberately concealed the same - also
no notice and opportunity of hearing was
given to him - Additionally, both criminal
cases against the petitioner had already been
quashed
-
matter
sent
back
for
reconsideration based on the law established
in the Avtar Singh and Pawan Kumar cases by
the Supreme Court (Para 13, 14)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Avtar Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors. 2016 (8) SCC
471

2. Pawan Kumar Vs U.O.I. & anr., 2022 0
Supreme (SC) 391

3. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Vijay Kumar & ors.
Special Appeal (Def.) No. 734 of 2016

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)
862 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard Mrs. Kamla Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pranav
Ojha, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has questioned the
order
dated
13th
December,
2018
(Annexure No. 19 to the writ petition)
passed by the Superintendent of Police,
Chandauli i.e. respondent no.4. Further, the
petitioner has prayed for a direction upon
respondent no.4 to send the petitioner on
training immediately for the post of Police
Constable pursuant to his final selection.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that
pursuant to the advertisement No. PRPB8(82) dated 29th December, 2015, which
was issued by the Uttar Pradesh Police
Recruitment
and
Promotion
Board,
Lucknow
for
"Direct
Recruitment
Constable (Civil Police) & Constable
(PAC) (Male)-2015, petitioner applied for
the post of Constable (Civil Police) under
Other Backward Class Category i.e. noncreamy layer category, after completing
requisite formalities, through online. After
evaluation
of
the
high
school
and
intermediate results of the petitioner, he
was called for physical efficiency test,
which was held on 3rd May, 2016. In the
said physical efficiency test, the petitioner
was declared successful and he was called
for verification of his documents. The
petitioner appeared before the authority
concerned for the said verification. A select
list was declared by the Uttar Pradesh
Police Recruitment and Promotion Board,
Lucknow on 15th May, 2019. Thereafter
the petitioner was called by respondent
no.4 on 9th June, 2018 to appear in the
medical examination at Chandauli, which
was held on 14th June, 2018. The petitioner
appeared in the said medical examination
and was declared successful. On 9th July,
2018, a final select list was uploaded on the
official website of the Uttar Pradesh Police
Recruitment
and
Promotion
Board,
Lucknow in which the name of the
petitioner has been placed at serial no.
14753. For the purposes of character
verification, the petitioner was required to
furnish an affidavit on the prescribed form,
which was duly submitted by him before
respondent no.4 on 11th June, 2018.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that as the petitioner was not
offered appointment letter for sending him
on training at Azamgarh, which was
allotted, pursuant to the final select list
dated
9th
July,
2018,
he
made
a
representation before respondent no.4 on
27th July, 2018. Thereafter the petitioner
was informed that as two criminal cases i.e.
Crime No. 111 of 2017 and Crime No. 44
of 2018, were pending against him,
therefore, his claim for issuing him
appointment letter on the said post cannot
be considered. In the applications filed by
the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
two different Coordinate Benches of this
Court, on the basis of compromise, have
quashed the entire proceedings of aforesaid
two criminal cases vide orders dated 13th
and 18th September, 2018, copies of which
have been enclosed as Annexure No. 13
and 14 to the present writ petition. As
entire proceedings of both the aforesaid
criminal cases have been quashed, the
petitioner made another representation
dated
26th
September,
2018
before
respondent no.4 along with copies of both
the
aforesaid
orders.
On
the
said
representation, respondent no.4 wrote a
letter to the Superintendent of Police,
Azamgarh i.e. respondent no. 5 to take
further action in the matter. However,
9 All. Balavant Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
863
neither respondent no.4 nor respondent
no.5 had taken any decision on the
representation of the petitioner dated 26th
September, 2018, due to which the
petitioner filed Writ-A No. 24703 of 2018
(Balwant Singh Yadav Vs. Sate of U.P. &
Others). The said writ petition was finally
disposed of by a Writ Court vide order
dated 22nd November, 2018 requiring the
petitioner to make a fresh representation
before respondent no.4, who inturn was
also required to decide the same in
accordance with law. Pursuant to the order
of the Writ Court dated 22nd November,
2018, the petitioner made his representation
on 30th November, 2018 before respondent
no.4, which has been rejected by him vide
order dated 13th December, 2018. It is
against this order that the present writ
petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that respondent no.4, without
application of mind and in a mechanical
manner, has passed the order impugned
while rejecting the claim of the petitioner
merely on the basis of declaration as made
by the petitioner in paragraph nos. 2 and 9
of the affidavit, which was furnished by
him at the time of verification of his
documents, where in paragraph no.2 the
petitioner made declaration "that to my
knowledge, no criminal case/matter was
ever registered against him neither any
police investigation is pending".

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that though, while passing
the order impugned, respondent no.4 has
recorded the fact of concealment of
criminal cases but has not recorded any
finding qua prior knowledge of the same to
the petitioner while he filed affidavit dated
11th June, 2018. It was categorical case of
the petitioner that when he was not sent for
training, on enquiry being made by him, he
came to know about the aforesaid criminal
cases, entire proceedings of which have
already been been quashed by this Court
referred to above, as such there is no
question of concealment of fact on the part
of the petitioner.

7. On the cumulative strength of the
aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that in view of the law laid down
by the Apex Court in Avtar Singh Vs.
Union of Indian and others, reported in
2016 (8) SCC 471, which has been
followed by the Division Bench of this
Court in Special Appeal (Def.) No. 734 of
2016 (State of U.P. and others Vs. Vijay
Kumar and others), his claim for
appointment on the post of Constable (Civil
Police) pursuant to the selection referred to
above, is liable to be allowed after
quashing the order impugned, which cannot
be legally sustained in the eyes of law.

8. On the other-hand, learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents
submits that as the petitioner has concealed
the pendency of aforesaid two criminal
cases against him in his affidavit, which
was submitted by him at the time of
verification, there is no illegality or
infirmity in the impugned order passed by
respondent no.2. However, the learned
counsel for the petitioner could not
controvert the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the
case laws referred by him.

9. I have considered the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the parties
and have gone through the records of the
present writ petition.

10. The Apex Court in the case of
Avtar Singh (Supra) has opined that non-
864 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
disclosure of conviction in a case of trivial
nature, 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.
While summarizing the conclusion, the Apex
Court has laid down broad guidelines, which
has
to
be
taken
note
of
by
the
appointing/competent authority in dealing
with the matters where there is a suppression
of material information or disclosure of false
information. The guidelines which have been
laid down by the Apex Court Avtar Singh
(supra), read as follows:

"38. We have noticed various
decisions and tried to explain and reconcile
them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid
discussion, we summarize 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 recourse 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
9 All. Balavant Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
865
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."

11. Following the judgment in the
case of Avtar Singh (Supra), the Apex
Court in its latest judgment in the case of
Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India &
Another, reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC)
391, has opined that mere suppression of
material/false information in a given case
does not mean that employer can arbitrarily
discharge/terminate an employee from
service. All matters cannot be put in a
straitjacket and a degree of flexibility and
discretion which vests with the authorities,
must be exercised with care and caution
taking all facts and circumstances into
consideration including the nature and type
of lapse. Relevant paragraphs of the
judgment in the case of Pawan Kumar
(Supra), reads as follows:

"13. What emerges from the
exposition as laid down by this Court is
that by mere suppression of material/false
information regardless of the fact whether
there is a conviction or acquittal has been
recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be
discharged/terminated axiomatically from
service just by a stroke of pen. At the same
time,
the
effect
of
suppression
of
material/false information involving in a
criminal case, if any, is left for the
employer to consider all the relevant facts
and
circumstances
available
as
to
antecedents and keeping in view the
objective criteria and the relevant service
rules into consideration, while taking
appropriate
decision
regarding
continuance/suitability of the employee
into service. What being noticed by this
Court is that mere suppression of
material/false information in a given case
does not mean that the employer can
866 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
arbitrarily
discharge/terminate
the
employee from service.

???.

18. The criminal case indeed was
of trivial nature and the nature of post and
nature of duties to be discharged by the
recruit has never been looked into by the
competent authority while examining the
overall suitability of the incumbent keeping
in view Rule 52 of the Rules 1987 to
become a member of the force. Taking into
consideration the exposition expressed by
this Court in Avtar Singh (supra), in our
considered view the order of discharge
passed by the competent authority dated
24th April, 2015 is not sustainable and in
sequel thereto the judgment passed by the
Division Bench of High Court of Delhi
does not hold good and deserves to be set
aside."

 (Emphasis supplied)

12. In the order impugned dated 13th
December, 2018 passed by respondent no.4
rejecting the selection/appointment of the
petitioner on the post of Constable, it has
been noticed that it has specifically been
mentioned, in the instructions issued by the
Board qua the verification of character of
candidates, that if the facts mentioned in
the affidavit, which has to be submitted by
all the candidates, are found to be false,
then the candidature of the candidate
concerned for selection/appointment shall
be cancelled and if any wrong fact is found
in
future
even
after
selection/appointment/recruitment of the
candidate concerned, then his/her services
from the post of Police Constable in U.P.
Police shall stand automatically terminated
without any reason and notice and legal
action will also be taken against him/her.
On the basis of the aforesaid, respondent
no.4 has recorded that since in paragraph
no.2 of the affidavit, the petitioner made
declaration "that to my knowledge, no
criminal case/matter was ever registered
against him neither any police investigation
is pending", whereas on enquiry it has been
found that two criminal cases were pending
against him, therefore, it has been found
that the petitioner has suppressed the
aforesaid
fact.
As
such
the
selection/appointment of the petitioner on
the said post stands cancelled. When as a
matter of fact, it is the categorical case of
the petitioner that when the petitioner
enquired as to why he is not being sent for
training after selection on the said post, he
has come to know from the respondent
authorities that two criminal cases were
pending
against
him.
As
such,
the
allegation
against
the
petitioner
for
concealment/suppression of material fact,
has no leg to stand.

13. From bare combined reading of
the order impugned as well as the law laid
down by the Apex Court in the cases of
Avtar
Singh
and
Pawan
Kumar
(Supras), this Court is of the opinion that
without any enquiry as to whether the
petitioner has knowledge about the criminal
cases pending against him and he has
deliberately concealed the same in his
affidavit
submitted
at
the
time
of
verification as also without any notice and
opportunity of hearing to him, respondent
no.4 has rejected the selection/appointment
of the petitioner for sending him training on
the post of Constable (Civil Police) while
passing
the
impugned
order
in
a
mechanical and harsh manner. Respondent
no.4 has also not recorded any finding as to
on what basis he came to the conclusion
that the petitioner has concealed the
material fact of pendency of criminal cases
9 All. Hari Ram Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
867
against him. Respondent no.4 has also not
examined the guidelines framed by the
Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh
(Supra),
while
rejecting
the
selection/appointment of the petitioner
under the order impugned. Even otherwise,
proceedings of both the criminal cases
pending against the petitioner have already
been quashed by this Court on the basis of
compromise, as has already been noticed
herein above.

14. In view of the aforesaid, this finds
that the order impugned passed by
respondent no.4 cannot be legally sustained
and is hereby quashed. Matter is remitted
back to respondent no.4 for decision afresh
in light of the law laid down by the Apex
Court in the cases of Avtar Singh and
Pawan Kumar (Supras). While deciding
the matter afresh, respondent no.4 shall
pass a reasoned and speaking order, after
affording opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, preferably within three months
from the date a certified copy of this order
is filed before him.

15. The present writ petition is
allowed subject to the observations made
above.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 867
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Writ A No.3475 of 2022

Hari Ram Singh ...Appellant
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Shivendu Ojha, Sri Shatrughan Sonwal,
Sri R.K. Ojha (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Abhishek Srivastava, Sri Ramesh
Chandra Pandey

Advertisement for appointment of Technician
Grade -II -qualification-High School along with
two
years
diploma
certificate
issued
by
NCVT/SCVT-Petitioner had trade proficiency
Certificate issued by Indian Armed force-which
is equivalent-candidature rejected-mandatory
NCVT/SCVT Certificate lacking.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Munesh Kumar & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(Writ A No. 52658 of 2012)

2. Sanjay Batra Vs St. of U.P. Throu. Prin. Secy.
Energy Deptt. Lko & ors. (Service Single No. 460
of 2014)

3. Dinesh Kumar Shukla Vs Electricity Service
Commission, Lucknow Thru. Chairman & ors.
(Special Appeal Defective No. 392 of 2017)

4. Sudhir Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr. (Special
Appeal Defective No. 147 of 2021) dated
19.02.2021
(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned standing counsel for
respondent no. 1, Sri Abhishek Srivastava,
learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3
and Sri Ramesh Chandra Pandey, learned
counsel for respondent no. 4.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that an advertisement dated
17.06.2020 was issued by respondent no. 3
for appointment of Technician Grade-II and
as per advertisement, qualification for
appointment was High School or equivalent