# Beer Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 10 ILRA 879
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-09-21
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 1392 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/beer-bahadur-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49543
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Petitioner's candidature rejected only on the
ground of pendency of two criminal cases- FIR
was lodged against 200 boys who were
agitating for completing the recruitment and
selection process- participation in an agitation of
unemployed youths that may ultimately turn out
to be violent for reasons beyond the control -
would not be adding gravity to the offence or
involving a case of moral turpitude- petitioner
had disclosed both the criminal cases and in one
of the cases now he has been acquitted-in the
other case- order impugned quashed.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

Cases cited:

## Text

10 All. Beer Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
879
a daily wager till his death on 31.08.2007
and even the judgment, which had been the
basis for the learned Single Judge for
granting the pensionary benefit came to be
passed on 04.10.2012 which merely dealt
with the issue of regularization and not
extending any pensionary benefits.

(24) The Apex Court in a catena of
judgements has spelt out the distinction,
therefore, the classification based on the
recruitment by following due procedure
under the rules and through backdoor entry
is well recognized. The writ petitioner/
respondent in the instant case has not
offered any justification as to how her
claim for family pension etc. can be
equated with the employees who have been
regularized after the death of her husband
by following the stringent process of
regularization.
The
writ
petitioner/respondent has also not laid any
foundation for establishing equivalence of
the services of her late husband as daily
wage basis or work-charge establishment to
be at par with the services of the employees
regularized after the death of her husband.
It is clear from the record available before
this Court that the appointment of late
husband of the writ petitioner/respondent
was made only on daily wage basis and
junior to her late husband was regularized
after the death of her husband under the
final order passed in writ petition No. 7226
(S/S) of 1992. The benefit of regular payscale given to the daily wage employee in
the
work-charge
establishment
would
nevertheless not qualify for pension so as to
enable the respondent for claiming family
pension. Any other benefit granted to
dependents
shall,
however,
remain
unaltered.

(25) As a result of the aforesaid
discussion, the special appeal is allowed.
The
impugned
judgment/order
dated
20.03.2023 is hereby set-aside in so far as it
relates to family pension.

(26) There shall be no order as to
costs, for the facts and circumstances of the
case.
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 879
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ-A No. 1392 of 2022

Beer Bahadur Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjeev Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Petitioner's candidature rejected only on the
ground of pendency of two criminal cases- FIR
was lodged against 200 boys who were
agitating for completing the recruitment and
selection process- participation in an agitation of
unemployed youths that may ultimately turn out
to be violent for reasons beyond the control -
would not be adding gravity to the offence or
involving a case of moral turpitude- petitioner
had disclosed both the criminal cases and in one
of the cases now he has been acquitted-in the
other case- order impugned quashed.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

Cases cited:

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

2. Umesh Chand Vs St. of UP & ors. decided on
24.03.2023 in SpecialAppeal No.67 of 2023
880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. St. of Rajasthan & ors. Vs Chetan Jeff; AIR
2022 (SC) 2274

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Petitioner has been applicant for the post
of Constable in Civil Police/Police Armed
Constabulary pursuant to the advertisement
issued and the recruitment examination
held in 2015. While recruitment process
was being undertaken and the examination
was
held,
the
entire
selection
and
recruitment became subject matter of
litigation before this Court. Ultimately,
with the dismissal of the writ petition, the
respondents proceeded with further medical
examination test. Petitioner was also
medically examined and successfully made
it to the merit list. However, when he
submitted his affidavit of undertaking and
disclosed therein two criminal cases
pending against him, one relating to
sections 341/332/353 Indian Penal Code
and 2/3 Gangsters Act and the other
relating to sections 147/148/149/504/506
IPC, the disclosure became instrumental in
denial of appointment to the petitioner.
Consequently, he approached this Court
first time vide Writ-A No.15583 of 2018
which was disposed of with the direction
that his claim should be considered in light
of the judgment of Avatar Singh vs. Union
of India & ors 2016 (8) SCC 471.
Ultimately, the candidature of the petitioner
came to be cancelled on the sole ground
that two criminal cases were pending
against him, vide order dated 26.03.2021.
This order too came to be challenged
before this Court vide Writ-A No.4098 of
2020 on the ground that the ratio of
judgment in the case of Avtar Singh (supra)
was
not
understood
in
its
correct
perspective by the authorities and that the
cases being trivial in nature, petitioner if
had been offered the appointment on the
post of Constable it would not have
adversely affected the discharge of his
duties as such. The Court found that the
dictum in the case of Avtar Singh (supra)
was not accorded due consideration and
accordingly, set aside the order and
remitted the matter to be decided afresh. It
is in compliance of this order dated
15.07.2021 that the impugned order has
now come to be passed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the guidelines that have
been prescribed for in the judgment of
Avtar Singh (supra) are indicative of an
important legal aspect that just because a
criminal case has been registered against a
candidate, his candidature ought not to
have been cancelled outrightly but there
should be due objective consideration to be
accorded to such cases, the nature of
criminal case, the circumstances in which a
person has got implicated and may be
history of criminal cases.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has also relied upon the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Umesh Chand vs. State of UP & ors
decided on 24.03.2023 in Special Appeal
No.67 of 2023.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel has relied upon a
latest judgment of Supreme Court in the
case of State of Rajasthan & ors vs.
Chetan Jeff; AIR 2022 (SC) 2274. He has
placed reliance upon paragraphs 7 & 8 of
the judgment and submits that after taking
into
consideration
various
previous
judgments of the Supreme Court including
that of Avtar Singh (supra) case, the Apex
Court has come to conclude that it is within
the discretion of the employer to offer
10 All. Beer Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
881
appointment to a person or not if he has
criminal antecedents to his credit.

5. Before I proceed to examine the
order impugned, learned counsel, at the
very outset, informed the Court that in so
far as the criminal case in connection with
the Case Crime No.345 of 2016 under
Sections
147/332/341/353
IPC
is
concerned, he has been acquitted in that
case vide judgment and order of the trial
court dated 09.06.2022 in Criminal Case
No.470 of 2017. Thus, now there remains
only one criminal case pending today.

6. Having heard learned counsel for
the respective parties and having perused
the record and having examined the order
impugned in the writ petition, I find that
petitioner's candidature has been rejected
only on the ground of pendency of two
criminal cases and upon receiving the
verification
report
from
the
District
Magistrate, Mirzapur dated 26.03.2019 i.e.
much prior to the judgment of this Court
dated 15.07.2021 whereupon the earlier
decision was taken by the authority and the
said order was quashed. The reasons
assigned is that in view of paragraphs 38.3,
38.5 and 38.6 of the judgment of Avtaar
Singh (supra), the matter of the petitioner
has been examined and since in the
criminal cases charge-sheet has been
submitted, it cannot be said that they are
trivial in nature. The authority has recorded
that in connection with Case Crime No.345
of 2016, petitioner was charged for creating
obstacle in discharge of official duty of the
police force and that he was involved in
damaging public property and also causing
disturbance to public order.

7. I would have understood this case
to be quite serious in nature, had the
petitioner been involved individually but
looking to the first information report, in
connection with Case Crime No.345 of
2016, I find that the FIR was lodged against
200 boys who were agitating at Lucknow
office of the Police Recruitment and
promotion Board for completing the
recruitment and selection process. It
appears that when the police resisted
certain people involved in brick batting that
resulted in damaging headlights and
indicators of vehicles and one of the
policemen got slightly injured.

8. This cannot be said to be a wellorganised crime. It was a mere agitation
being launched by the candidates for the
purposes
of
carrying
out
speedy
recruitment and selection process which
was at a standstill and that the first
information report came to be lodged
against unknown persons.

9. It is true that charge-sheet has been
submitted and quite possible that all those
who could be identified through CCTV
footage were subjected to the charge-sheet
but it may be too difficult to prove the
charges. It further transpires to be not a
case of that kind that petitioner had
criminal history to be involved in such
incidents.

10. The Supreme Court in the case of
Avtar Singh (supra) has noticed that in
many cases people may be involved in
general in masses where the agitation is
taking place and they got implicated in
criminal case, therefore, the discretion of
the employer would be to assess the
suitability
while
adjudging
such
antecedents of the incumbent.

11.

In
my
considered
view,
participation in an agitation of unemployed
youths that may ultimately turn out to be
882 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
violent for certain reasons beyond the
control of those who are participating in the
agitation and ultimately their names figures
in the charge-sheet, by itself would not be
adding gravity to the offence or involving a
case of moral turpitude.

12. Presence of animus attributable to
the named accused in criminal case so as to
arrive at a conclusion that such an accused
if assigned duty would erode faith of
people and credibility of the department
should
be
hallmark
to
reject
the
candidature. Many a time a named accused
himself may be a victim and allegations
being general in nature, has no specific role
could be assigned. In such cases it is quite
possible that prosecution fails to produce
cogent material resulting in acquittal. If an
accused does not have a long history of
criminal cases and implication in criminal
case for any village politics and neighbour
animosity or family dispute, the department
should take pragmatic view. Similarly,
when public agitation is going on, it is quite
possible that FIR allegations are found to
be general in nature and some persons are
identified as raising hands/fists or slogans
in CCTV footage or media reporting and
charge-sheet is filed naming them, the
department must adopt pragmatic approach.
Such implication in criminal cases may
result in acquittal ultimately, but a
candidate who had been in agitation by
default of his presence may loose a lifetime
opportunity to have a career in government
service.

13. Similarly, when the Court has
recorded vide paragraph 31 in Avtar Singh
(supra) that in case an offence is petty in
nature and committed at young age such as
stealing bread, shouting of slogans or with
such a moral turpitude, cheating or
misappropriation etc. or otherwise not a
serious or heinous offence and if accused
has been acquitted in such a case when
verification report is filed, employer may
ignore lapse of even suppression or
submitting false information.

14. Here is a better case where the
petitioner had disclosed both the criminal
cases registered against him and in one of
the cases, now he has been acquitted. In the
other case, I would say the participation in
agitation by unemployed youths for seeking
speedy recruitment is only attributable to
mass tendencies and there is no animus as
such of an individual so as to attract him to
have
committed
heinous
crime
like
disturbing public order or damaging public
property. Such an approach is required for
a
healthier
ecosystem
of
public
employment offered by the State, being a
model employer.

15. Following the principles in Avtar
Singh (supra), the Division Bench of this
Court allowed appeal of one Umesh Chand
(supra).
The
Court
emphasised
the
principle as contained in para 38.3 and 38.6
of the judgment in Avtar Singh (supra). In
so far as in the case of Chetan Jeff (supra)
is concerned, there I find to be history of
criminal antecedents to the credit of the
petitioner and then acquittal in one of the
cases was only on the basis of the
compromise. While in other case, he was
though convicted but was given benefit of
Probation
of
Offenders
Act,
1958.
Paragraphs 7 & 8 of Chetan Jeff (supra)
runs as under:

"7. Applying the law laid down by this
Court in the aforesaid cases, it cannot be
said that the authority committed any error
in rejecting the candidature of the original
writ petitioner for the post of constable in
the instant case.
10 All. Beer Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
883

8. Even otherwise it is required to be
noted that subsequently and during the
proceedings before the learned Single
Judge as well as the Division Bench, there
are three to four other FIRs filed against
the original writ petitioner culminating into
criminal trials and in two cases he has
been
acquitted
on
the
ground
of
compromise and in one case though
convicted, he has been granted the benefit
of Probation of Offenders Act. One more
criminal case is pending against him.
Therefore, the original writ petitioner
cannot be appointed to such a post of
constable."

16. In view of the above, therefore,
the judgment in the case of Chetan Jeff
(supra) is distinguishable on facts. It has
been repeatedly held by Supreme Court
that the judgements are not theories of law
to be applied generally. It is to be always
taken into consideration as to whether a
particular judgment fits in the setting of
facts of case or not. In Chintels India
Limited v. Bhayana Builders Private
Limited, (2021) 4 SCC 602, Supreme Court
has dealt with this principle of law in detail.
Vide paragraph no. 31 it has held thus:

"31. It is well settled that judgments
are not to be construed like Euclid's
theorems (see Amar Nath Om Prakash v.
State of Punjab (1985) 1 SCC 345), but all
observations made therein must relate to
the context in which they were made. In
that case, the Court put it thus: (SCC p.
362-63, paras 10-11)

"10. There is one other significant
sentence in Sreenivasa General Traders v.
State of A.P [(1983) 4 SCC 353] with
which we must express our agreement, it
was said: (SCC p. 377, paras 26-27)

"26-27. ? With utmost respect, these
observations of the learned Judge are not
to be read as Euclid's theorems, nor as
provisions
of
a
statute.
These
observations must be read in the context
in which they appear."

We consider it proper to say, as we
have already said in other cases, that
judgments of courts are not to be
construed as statutes. To interpret words,
phrases and provisions of a statute, it
may become necessary for Judges to
embark into lengthy discussions but the
discussion is meant to explain and not to
define. Judges interpret statutes, they do
not interpret judgments. They interpret
words of statutes; their words are not to
be interpreted as statutes. In London
Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton [1951
AC
737,
761]
Lord
MacDermott
observed: (AC p. 761)

"...The matter cannot, of course, be
settled merely by treating the ipsissima
verba of Willes, J., as though they were
part of an Act of Parliament and applying
the rules of interpretation appropriate
thereto. This is not to detract from the
great weight to be given to the language
actually used by that most distinguished
Judge.?'

In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co.
Ltd. [(1970) 2 All ER 294] Lord Reid
said: (AC p. 1027)

"...Lord Atkin's speech [Donoghue v.
Stevension, 1932 All ER Rep 1, 11] ... is
not to be treated as if it was a statutory
definition. It will require qualification in
new circumstances."

Megarry, J. in Shepherd Homes Ltd.
v. Sandham (No. 2) (1971) 1 WLR 1062
observed: (WLR p. 1069)

"...One must not, of course, construe
even a reserved judgment of even Russell,
L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament."

And, in Herrington v. British Railways
Board [1972 AC 877 Lord Morris said:
(AC p. 902)
884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"There is always peril in treating the
words of a speech or a judgment as though
they were words in a legislative enactment,
and it is to be remembered that judicial
utterances are made in the setting of the
facts of a particular case."

11. There are a few other observations
in Kewal Krishan Puri case [(1980) 1 SCC
416] to which apply with the same force all
that we have said above. It is needless to
repeat the oft-quoted truism of Lord
Halsbury that a case is only an authority
for what it actually decides and not for
what may seem to follow logically from it."

17. In view of the above, writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The order
impugned dated 25.10.2021 passed by
Superintendent of Police is hereby quashed.
The respondents are directed to accord
positive consideration to the candidature of
the petitioner and offer him appointment if
otherwise there is no legal impediment. The
appointment, however, shall abide by the
outcome of criminal case which is going on
against the petitioner in connection with Case
Crime No.591 of 2015.
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 884
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ-A No. 6129 of 2018

Randhir Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Udayan Nandan, Sri Anuj Srivastava, In Person

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri A.K. Yadav

Civil
Law
-
U.P.
Government
Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 7 -
Petitioner, while serving as Additional District
Magistrate was also given additional charge as
Assistant Custodian under Act, 1950 - During
his tenure, complaint was made by one of
resident
regarding
auction,
inquiry
was
ordered by Commissioner and joint team
comprising Additional Commissioner (Judicial)
and Additional Commissioner (Administration)
submitted
report
highlighting
technical
irregularities in auction process - Respondent
passed
impugned
punishment
order,
dismissing writ petitioner from service - Issue
before Court was whether there had been any
infraction of rules with regard to conducting
inquiry with respect of imposition of major
punishment - Whether there has been strict
compliance of provisions of Rule 7 of Rules,
1999 - Once delinquent denies charges, it is
incumbent
upon
prosecution
to
prove
allegations made in charge sheet - Since no
such exercise undertaken, impugned order
legally unsustainable - Petitioner was not
given opportunity for oral hearing post charge
sheet, in violation of Rule 7 of Rules,1999 and
considering his suspension and subsequent
retirement, inquiry is to recommence from
stage of charge sheet issuance within time
bound period - Impugned order, set aside.
(Para 3, 7, 23 to 45)

Writ petition partly allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Roop Singh Negi Vs Punjab National Bank &
ors.(2009) 2 SCC 570, (Paras 14, 23)

2. St. of Uttar Pradesh & ors. Vs Saroj Kumar
Sinha 2010 (2) SCC 772, (Paras 26 to 30)

3. Kaptan Singh Vs St. of U.P. 2014 (105) ALR
377, (Paras 8, 9, 11)

4. Ram Gopal Lodhi Vs St. of U.P. 2023 (8) ADJ
246, (Paras 11, 13)

5. C/M Muslim Inter College & ors. Vs St. of U.P.
& ors., Special Appeal No. 716 of 2022, decided
on
16.12.2022,
(Para
28)