# Chandrajeet Kumar Gond v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 741
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-25
- **Case number:** THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I Special Appeal No. 777 of 2023
- **Bench:** Salil Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandrajeet-kumar-gond-v-high-court-of-judicature-at-allahabad-anr-51470
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Law
-
Cancellation
of
Candidature - Non-Disclosure of Criminal
Case - Appellant's candidature for Class-IV post
(Orderly/Peon) was cancelled for failing to
disclose a pending criminal case (Case Crime
No. 166 of 2020 under Sections 307, 323, 504,
506, 325 IPC) in the application form -
Appellant claimed the error was inadvertent due
to a computer operator's mistake and disclosed
the case in an affidavit post-selection - Held,
deliberate non-disclosure of a pending criminal
case,
despite
opportunity
to
correct
the
application, justifies cancellation of candidature
under High Court guidelines and *Avtar Singh
Vs
U.O.I.*
-
No
special
circumstances
warranted leniency, as appellant's claim of
inadvertence
was
unconvincing
given
his
computer literacy and delay in disclosure until
directed by authorities. (Paras 4, 5, 9, 16, 17,
20, 22)

B. Service Law - Application of Avtar
Singh Guidelines - Avtar Singh Vs U.O.I.
mandates truthful disclosure of criminal cases,
with cancellation of candidature permissible for
suppression of material facts - Appellant's case
falls under para 38.1 of *Avtar Singh*, as he
falsely declared "No" to pending criminal cases,
despite a correction window (15.11.202216.11.2022) - Disclosure only after authorities'
directive
(20.05.2023)
does
not
mitigate
deliberate suppression - Employer's trust in
candidate's credibility is paramount, and nondisclosure
undermines
suitability
for
appointment, as reinforced by *Rajasthan Rajya
Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. Vs Anil Kanwaria*.
(Paras 11, 14, 15, 17, 22)

C. Service Law - High Court Guidelines -
Procedural Fairness - High Court guidelines
(para 6) require candidates to submit an
affidavit declaring no pending criminal cases or
convictions, with cancellation of candidature for
non-disclosure - Respondent no. 2 (District
Judge)
issued
a
show-cause
notice
and
considered
appellant's
explanation
before
cancelling candidature - Held, the process
complied with natural justice and High Court
guidelines - Learned Single Judge's dismissal of
the writ petition upheld, as no illegality or
irregularity found in the cancellation order dated
03.08.2023. (Paras 10, 18, 19, 23)

Special Appeal Dismissed - No Illegality in
Cancellation of Candidature.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Chandrajeet Kumar Gond Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Anr.
741
judgment and order of learned Single
Judge. The special appeals, consequently,
fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. No
order is passed as to costs.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 741
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I

Special Appeal No. 777 of 2023

Chandrajeet Kumar Gond ...Appellant
Versus
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad &
Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Amit Kumar Tiwari, Sri Akash Yadav, Sri
Shyam Dhar Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashish Mishra

A.
Service
Law
-
Cancellation
of
Candidature - Non-Disclosure of Criminal
Case - Appellant's candidature for Class-IV post
(Orderly/Peon) was cancelled for failing to
disclose a pending criminal case (Case Crime
No. 166 of 2020 under Sections 307, 323, 504,
506, 325 IPC) in the application form -
Appellant claimed the error was inadvertent due
to a computer operator's mistake and disclosed
the case in an affidavit post-selection - Held,
deliberate non-disclosure of a pending criminal
case,
despite
opportunity
to
correct
the
application, justifies cancellation of candidature
under High Court guidelines and *Avtar Singh
Vs
U.O.I.*
-
No
special
circumstances
warranted leniency, as appellant's claim of
inadvertence
was
unconvincing
given
his
computer literacy and delay in disclosure until
directed by authorities. (Paras 4, 5, 9, 16, 17,
20, 22)

B. Service Law - Application of Avtar
Singh Guidelines - Avtar Singh Vs U.O.I.
mandates truthful disclosure of criminal cases,
with cancellation of candidature permissible for
suppression of material facts - Appellant's case
falls under para 38.1 of *Avtar Singh*, as he
falsely declared "No" to pending criminal cases,
despite a correction window (15.11.202216.11.2022) - Disclosure only after authorities'
directive
(20.05.2023)
does
not
mitigate
deliberate suppression - Employer's trust in
candidate's credibility is paramount, and nondisclosure
undermines
suitability
for
appointment, as reinforced by *Rajasthan Rajya
Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. Vs Anil Kanwaria*.
(Paras 11, 14, 15, 17, 22)

C. Service Law - High Court Guidelines -
Procedural Fairness - High Court guidelines
(para 6) require candidates to submit an
affidavit declaring no pending criminal cases or
convictions, with cancellation of candidature for
non-disclosure - Respondent no. 2 (District
Judge)
issued
a
show-cause
notice
and
considered
appellant's
explanation
before
cancelling candidature - Held, the process
complied with natural justice and High Court
guidelines - Learned Single Judge's dismissal of
the writ petition upheld, as no illegality or
irregularity found in the cancellation order dated
03.08.2023. (Paras 10, 18, 19, 23)

Special Appeal Dismissed - No Illegality in
Cancellation of Candidature.

List of Cases cited:

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

2. St. of M.P. & ors. Vs Bhupendra Yadav, 2023
SCC OnLine SC 1181

3. Daya Shankar Yadav Vs U.O.I., (2010) 14
SCC 103

4. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd.
Vs Anil Kanwaria, (2021) 10 SCC 136

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,
J.)
742 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Heard Sri Shyam Dhar Gupta assisted
by Sri Akash Yadav representing the
appellant
and
Sri
Ashish
Mishra
representing the respondents.

2. This special appeal has been
instituted against judgement and order
dated 18.09.2023 passed by learned Single
Judge of this Court in WRIT- A No. 15566
of 2023, Chandrajeet Kumar Gond Vs.
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and
Another). Vide impugned order, learned
Single Judge had rejected the writ petition
filed praying for quashing of the order
dated 03.08.2023 passed by learned District
Judge, Sultanpur, whereby the candidature
of the petitioner for Class-IV post in
District Court, Sultanpur, has been rejected.

3. The aforesaid writ petition was
filed by the petitioner, Chandrajeet Kumar
Gond, with the following prayer to :-

(a) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari to
quash/set-aside
the
impugned
administrative order dated 03.08.2023
passed by the respondent no. 2, i.e. District
Judge, Sultanpur, where learned District
Judge,
Sultanpur,
has
rejected
the
candidature of the petitioner for the post of
Orderly/Peon/Office Peon/Farrash (Group
'D') conducted by High Court of Allahabad
with
respect
of
Advertisement
No.
01/Sub.Court/Category D/2022.

(b) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding and directing the respondent
no. 2 to appoint the petitioner for the post
of
Orderly/Peon/Office
Peon/Farrash
(Group 'D') within some stipulated period
in pursuance of the Advertisement No.
01/Sub.Court/Category D/2022, by which
the petitioner may discharge his duty for
the said post.

4. The averment made by the
appellant/petitioner in the writ petition is
that the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad had issued an advertisement
bearing
Advertisement
No.
01/Sub.Court/Category- D/2022 on 30th
October, 2022 (30.10.2022) at official
website of High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad. The petitioner applied to the
post of Orderly/Peon/Office Peon/Farrash:
Category- D bearing Advertisement No.
01/Sub.Court/Category-
D/2022.
The
essential qualification for the appointment
for
the
post
of
Orderly/Peon/Office
Peon/Farrash : Category- D was that the
candidate must have passed Junior High
School (Class-VIIIth). The petitioner had
passed Class- VIIIth examination from Nav
Bharat Junior High School, Sevapuri,
District- Varanasi in the year 2010. The
petitioner finding himself eligible for the
said post filled the online application form
on 13.11.2022. As per him, against the
column
of
"Whether
any
criminal
complaint case have been registered
against you ?", the petitioner inadvertently
filled in the reply column as "No". The
selection was held in two rounds of which
the first round was held on 17.12.2022 in
which the petitioner qualified. The second
round of selection was held on 02.04.2023
in which the petitioner again qualified and
he was declared as successful. An order
was received by the petitioner from the
respondents on 20.05.2023 requiring the
petitioner to complete various formalities
including submission of an affidavit as to
whether the petitioner has got any criminal
case pending against him or whether he has
ever been proceeded against in a criminal
case in which he has been acquitted or
found guilty. In pursuance thereof, the
petitioner claims to have submitted an
affidavit on 02.06.2023 in which he has
disclosed about pendency of a Case Crime
2 All. Chandrajeet Kumar Gond Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Anr.
743
No. 166 of 2020 u/s 307, 323, 504, 506 &
325 I.P.C. registered in Police Station-
Mirzamurad, District- Varanasi. Learned
District Judge vide impugned order dated
03.08.2023, considering the guidelines
issued by the High Court, more particularly
paragraph 6 of the guidelines that where a
candidates has not disclosed information of
criminal
case/proceedings
then
his
candidature is liable to be cancelled, has
cancelled the candidature of the petitioner.

5. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the appellant that the learned
Single Judge without applying proper
judicial mind by misreading the true facts
and also not correctly applying the
judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Avtar
Singh Vs. Union of India and others,
(2016)
8
SCC
471,
cancelled
the
candidature of the appellant. It has also
been submitted that the appellant had filled
his online application form with the aid of
computer operator. By the mistake of the
computer operator in the column of
disclosing
criminal
case
against
the
candidate, "No" was mentioned in place of
"Yes" . Although a criminal case had been
registered against the appellant about two
years ago. It has also been submitted that
the appellant could not detect the mistake
done by the computer operator. The
appellant appeared in the examination and
was declared finally selected. Vide letter
dated 20.05.2023, the District Judge,
Sultanpur
directed
the
appellant
for
document verification and to file an
affidavit regarding various particulars inter
alia
non-pendency
of
and
conviction/acquittal in any criminal case
against him. When the appellant was
making
preparation
for
document
verification and for the affidavit, at this
very stage, he noticed the mistake occurred
in his online application. It has also been
submitted that without any delay on
27.05.2023,
the
appellant/petitioner
submitted an affidavit correctly admitting
that a criminal case bearing Case Crime
No. 166 of 2020 u/s 307, 323, 504, 506 &
325 I.P.C., Police Station- Mirzamurad,
District- Varanasi, is registered against him
in which charge-sheet has been submitted
before the court. It has also been submitted
that the appellant disclosed about the
pendency of criminal case against him on
27.05.2023 i.e. before issuance of the
notice of District Judge, Sultanpur dated
07.07.2023 calling upon an explanation
from him why his candidature must not be
cancelled for concealing the criminal case
pending against him. It has also been
submitted that in reply to the aforesaid
notice, the petitioner had explained the
reasons for not mentioning the criminal
case pending against him but in an arbitrary
and illegal manner without applying
judicial mind, the District Judge, Sultanpur
vide order dated 03.08.2023 cancelled his
candidature. It has also been submitted that
paragraph no. 38.1 of the judgement of
Avtar Singh (supra) is not applicable in
the case of appellant and the case of
appellant is covered with paragraph nos.
38.2 and 38.3 of the judgement of the same
case which has not been considered by the
learned Single Judge and he illegally
dismissed his writ petition. It has also been
submitted that due to pendency of a
criminal case registered against him, his
candidature should not be cancelled but an
undertaking should be taken from the
selected candidate that if the judgement in
the criminal case goes against him, he shall
be dismissed from his service and the
candidate shall have no objection.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents has argued that the appellant
filled the online application on 13.11.2022.
744 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Against the column regarding pendency of
criminal case, the appellant deliberately
filled in "No". In the advertisement, it was
provided that the particulars of the online
application form could be corrected within
the period from 15.09.2022 to 16.09.2022.
However, the appellant did not make any
effort to correct the erroneous entry made
in the application form. It has also been
submitted that the appellant was asked vide
order dated 20.05.2023 by the District
Judge, Sultanpur to file an affidavit
regarding pendency of the criminal case
against him and whether he has been
convicted or acquitted in any criminal case.
Only thereafter on 27.05.2023, he filed
affidavit mentioning that a criminal case is
pending
against
him.
Therefore,
the
appellant did not disclose the pendency of
criminal case against him within the
prescribed period but after a gap of more
than 10 months. Therefore, it cannot be
presumed that the error in the application
was not deliberate but inadvertently made.
It has also been submitted that the learned
Single Judge, after going through the facts
and circumstances of the case and the law
applicable thereto, had rightly dismissed
the writ petition filed by the appellant.

7. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

8. From the perusal of the record it
transpires that the High Court has issued an
advertisement
on
30.10.2022
inviting
applications for appointment to the ClassIV
post
of
Orderly/Peon/Office
Peon/Farrash. The appellant submitted in
his application form against the column
'whether any criminal/ complaint case have
ever been registered against you?'. The
appellant gave reply as "No". The appellant
appeared in two rounds of selection process
held on 17.12.2022 & 2.4.2023 and
qualified for being appointed as a Class-IV
Post.

9. The office of Respondent No.2 vide
letter
dated
20.5.2023
required
the
appellant to fulfil certain formalities prior
to his appointment to the aforesaid post.
One of the formalities was of submission of
an affidavit in the shape of undertaking that
no criminal case is pending against the
appellant neither in any case he has been
convicted or acquitted. It is only then that
the appellant submitted his affidavit on
2.6.2023 indicating about pendency of a
criminal case i.e. Case Crime No. 0166 of
2020 under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 &
325 IPC registered in Police Station,
Mirzamurad,
District-Varanasi.
In
his
affidavit dated 2.6.2023, the appellant has
indicated that while filling in the online
application form he had inadvertently filled
the column against the criminal case as
"No" which as per the appellant is incorrect
as a criminal case i.e. Case Crime No. 0166
of 2020 is pending against him and his
reply should be treated as "Yes".

10.

The
competent
authority,
respondent no.2 after considering the
appellant's affidavit dated 2.6.2023 as well
as paragraph no.6 of the guidelines issued
by the High Court regarding concealment
has cancelled the candidature of the
appellant.

11. A three Judges Bench of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh Vs.
Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC
471, after examining different views
expressed by the Bench of Hon'ble Apext
Court from time to time, has laid down the
broad guidelines as yardstick to be applied
for verification of disclosure made by a
candidate to the employer for deciding as to
whether the cancellation of candidature or
2 All. Chandrajeet Kumar Gond Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Anr.
745
termination of service of the incumbent
should be done or not? In this context, it
may be useful to extract the following
observations made in Avtar Singh (supra);

32. No doubt about it that once
verification
form
requires
certain
information to be furnished, declarant is
duty-bound to furnish it correctly and any
suppression
of
material
facts
or
submitting false information, may by itself
lead to termination of his services or
cancellation
of
candidature
in
an
appropriate case. However, in a criminal
case incumbent has not been acquitted
and case is pending trial, employer may
well be justified in not appointing such an
incumbent or in terminating the services
as conviction ultimately may render him
unsuitable for job and employer is not
supposed to wait till outcome of criminal
case. In such a case non-disclosure or
submitting
false
information
would
assume significance and that by itself may
be ground for employer to cancel
candidature or to terminate services.

36.What yardstick is to be
applied has to depend upon the nature of
post, higher post would involve more
rigorous criteria for all services, not only
to uniformed service. For lower posts
which are not sensitive, nature of duties,
impact of suppression on suitability has to
be considered by authorities concerned
considering post/nature of duties/services
and power has to be exercised on due
consideration of various aspects.

"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
746 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 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."

12. In paragraph no.16 of the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State
of Madhyra Pradesh and Ors. Vs.
Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 (SCC Online)
SC 1181 has given credence to of the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Avtar
Singh case (supra) which is as follows:-

16. As can be discerned from the
above decision, an employer has the
discretion to terminate or condone an
omission in the disclosure made by a
candidate. While doing so, the employer
must act with prudence, keep in mind the
nature of the post and the duties required
to be discharged. Higher the post, more
stringent ought to be the standards to be
applied. Even if a truthful disclosure has
been made, the employer is well within its
right to examine the fitness of a candidate
and in a concluded criminal case, keep in
mind the nature of the offence and verify
whether the acquittal is honourable or
benefit has been extended on technical
reasons. If the employer arrives at a
conclusion that the incumbent is of a
suspect character or unfit for the post, he
may not be appointed or continued in
service."

13. In Daya Shankar Yadav Vs.
Union of India; 201014 SCC 103, the
Court has held that where the candidate has
2 All. Chandrajeet Kumar Gond Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Anr.
747
given correct or false or half backed
information with respect to his antecedents,
the following consequences will take place.

"15. When an employee or a
prospective
employee
declares
in
a
verification form, answers to the queries
relating to character and antecedents, the
verification thereof can therefore lead to
any of the following consequences:

(a) If the declarant has answered
the questions in the affirmative and
furnished the details of any criminal case
(wherein he was convicted or acquitted by
giving benefit of doubt for want of
evidence), the employer may refuse to
offer him employment (or if already
employed on probation, discharge him
from service), if he is found to be unfit
having regard to the nature and gravity of
the offence/crime in which he was
involved.

(b) On the other hand, if the
employer finds that the criminal case
disclosed by the declarant related to
offences which were technical, or of a
nature
that
would
not
affect
the
declarant's fitness for employment, or
where the declarant had been honourably
acquitted and exonerated, the employer
may ignore the fact that the declarant had
been prosecuted in a criminal case and
proceed to appoint him or continue him in
employment.

(c) Where the declarant has
answered the questions in the negative
and on verification it is found that the
answers were false, the employer may
refuse to employ the declarant (or
discharge him, if already employed), even
if the declarant had been cleared of the
charges or is acquitted. This is because
when there is suppression or nondisclosure of material information bearing
on his character, that itself becomes a
reason for not employing the declarant.

(d) Where the attestation form or
verification form does not contain proper
or
adequate
queries
requiring
the
declarant to disclose his involvement in
any criminal proceedings, or where the
candidate was unaware of initiation of
criminal proceedings when he gave the
declarations
in
the
verification
roll/attestation form, then the candidate
cannot be found fault with, for not
furnishing the relevant information. But if
the employer by other means (say police
verification or complaints, etc.) learns
about the involvement of the declarant,
the employer can have recourse to courses
(a) or (b) above."

14. In Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut
Prasaran
Nigam
Limited
Vs.
Anil
Kanwaria (2021) 10 SCC 136 where the
respondents after qualifying for the post
was appointed as a probationer trainee,
technical helper in the course of his police
verification it had transpired that he had
been convicted by the trial court for the
offences under Sections 323 and 341 of
IPC but was extended benefit under the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and
released on good conduct. The respondent
withheld these facts in his application form
for appointment. After distilling the law on
appointments
obtained
by
fraud
or
misrepresentation/
by
suppression
of
material facts. The Hon'ble Apex Court
proceeded to quash the appointment and set
aside the order passed by the learned Single
Judge and upheld the order passed by the
Division Bench of High Court stating that
the decision of learned Single Judge
directing
the
reinstatement
of
the
respondent- employee was unsustainable in
view of the fact that the employee had not
disclosed/suppressed the fact that he has
748 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been convicted by a competent court and
had filed a false declaration in this regard.
In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court
expressed its view that even where there is
a subsequent acquittal, the employee
having
furnished
false
information/indulged in suppression of
material fact of his conviction in a criminal
case, cannot claim appointment as a matter
of right. Following observation was made
regarding credibility of such an employee
from the perspective of the employer:

"14. The issue/question may be
considered from another angle, from the
employer's point of view. The question is
not about whether an employee was
involved in a dispute of trivial nature and
whether he has been subsequently acquitted
or not. The question is about the credibility
and/or trustworthiness of such an employee
who at the initial stage of the employment
i.e.
while
submitting
the
declaration/verification and/or applying for
a post made false declaration and/or not
disclosing and/or suppressing material fact
of having involved in a criminal case. If the
correct facts would have been disclosed,
the employer might not have appointed
him. Then the question is of trust.
Therefore, in such a situation, where the
employer feels that an employee who at the
initial stage itself has made a false
statement and/or not disclosed the material
facts and/or suppressed the material facts
and therefore he cannot be continued in
service because such an employee cannot
be relied upon even in future, the employer
cannot be forced to continue such an
employee. The choice/option whether to
continue or not to continue such an
employee always must be given to the
employer. At the cost of repetition, it is
observed and as observed hereinabove in
catena of decision such an employee
cannot claim the appointment and/or
continue to be in service as a matter of
right."

15. From considering the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Avtar
Singh (supra) and Rajasthan Rajya
Vidhut Prasaran Nigam Limited (supra)
it can be concluded that the information
given to the employer by a candidate as to
the
conviction/acquittal
or
arrest
or
pendency of criminal case whether before
or after entering into the service must be
true and there should be no suppression or
false mention of required information. Any
contravention made by the candidate shall
cause cancellation of his candidature,
dismissal from service if already appointed.

16. The discloser made by the
appellant while applying for the Class-IV
post regarding pendency of criminal case
was
clearly
false
as
he
had
mentioned/replied "No" to the query
regarding the criminal case pending against
him. The advertisement itself provided
space for correction of error between
period 15.11.2022 to 16.11.2022 but no
efforts were made by the appellant for
correction of the said reply/answer in his
online application form. The appellant
appeared in two rounds of selection process
and despite having been qualified in the
same, no effort was made by him to
indicate the pendency of criminal case to
the respondent no.2 competent authority. It
is only when on 20.5.2023, the appellant
was
asked
to
furnish
an
affidavit/undertaking
regarding
his
conviction/acquittal
or
pendency
of
criminal case against him. The appellant
submitted
his
affidavit
on
2.6.2023
indicating the pendency of criminal case.
Thus, the appellant from the date of the
submission
of
application
form
i.e.
2 All. Chandrajeet Kumar Gond Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Anr.
749
13.11.2022 until 02.06.2023 persisted on
giving
wrong
information
about
the
pendency of criminal cases against him and
for the first time on 02.06.2023, he
disclosed the criminal case pending against
him. The competent authority respondent
no.2 after considering the said affidavit as
well as paragraph no.6 of the guidelines
issued by the High Court has rightly
cancelled the candidature of the appellant.

17. From the above discussion, it is
obvious that the appellant has deliberately
furnished false information about the nonpendency of criminal case against him,
therefore his case is squarely covered under
the paragraph no. 38.1 of Avtar Singh case
(supra). There is no special circumstances
in favour of the appellant which may
extenuate him from his aforesaid mislead.
The appointing authority- respondent no.2
has taken into consideration the guidelines
of High Court before passing impugned
order. There is no substance in the plea of
the appellant that his case is not covered
under paragraph no. 38.1 and it is covered
under paragraph nos. 38.2 and 38.3 of
Avtar Singh case (supra) and his
candidature should not be cancelled.
Therefore, his plea cannot be taken into
consideration in favour of him.

18. The High Court had issued
guidelines for verification of antecedent
testimonials of the candidate and if
required cancelling of his candidature. The
paragraph No. 6 of the guidelines is as
follows:

"An undertaking on affidavit
shall be taken from the selected candidates
declaring
that
neither
any
criminal
case/proceeding is pending against him/her
nor he has been convicted/acquitted by any
Court.
In
case
any
criminal
case/proceeding is found pending against
him/her in any court which has not been
declared
by
the
candidate
in
the
application form, a show cause notice shall
be issued to such candidate by the
appointing authority as to why their
candidature be not canceled. The decision
of the appointing authority about the
candidature of such candidate shall be
treated as final. Further, if such a
candidate has not disclosed the information
of
criminal
case/proceeding
in
the
Undertaking on Affidavit submitted at the
time
of
joining,
the
candidature/appointment of such candidate
shall
be
forfeited/cancelled
by
the
appointing authority at their end."

19. The respondent no.2 appointing
authority
after
following
procedure
provided in the paragraph no.6 of the
aforesaid guidelines
after
giving the
appellant opportunity to explain false
statement regarding pendency of criminal
case in his application for appointment has
rightly cancelled the candidature of the
appellant.

20. From the discussion of the
aforesaid facts it is thus, obvious that the
appellant had given false information
regarding pendency of criminal case in his
application form and he did not make
correction within the time prescribed in the
advertisement and also he did not disclose
the facts regarding pendeny of criminal
case till declaration of the result. For the
first time he made disclose regarding
pendency of criminal case against him.
When on 20.5.2023, the appellant was
directed by the respondent no.2 to give
undertaking by an affidavit regarding
pendency of criminal case. Apart from this,
from the testimonials filed by the appellant,
it is clear that he is computer knowing
750 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
person and has done C-Grade course of
computer in June, 2017 i.e. before submitting an
online application for appointment.

21. Thus, the explanation given by the
appellant that he has no knowledge about the
online filling form and he gave all the relevant
information/documents to the person who filled
his online form and inadvertently error crept in by
the person filling the application form regarding
non pendency of criminal case against him, cannot
be accepted.

22. Thus, considering conduct of the
appellant and in light of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh (supra) and
Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (supra), it
can be concluded that the appellant deliberately
made concealment of fact regarding pendency of
criminal case in his application form.

23. Considering the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, and in
the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not
find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned
order 18.9.2023 passed by the learned Single
Judge in WRIT - A No. - 15566 of 2023.

24. There is no merit in the Special Appeal.
It is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 750
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI,
J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 791 of 2023
Connected with
Special Appeal Defective No. 790 of 2023
And
Special Appeal Defective No. 84 of 2024
And
Special Appeal Defective No. 803 of 2023

C/M,
Sri
Durga
Ji
(P.G.)
College
Chandeswar, Azamgarh & Anr.
 ...Appellants
Versus
Ambrish Kumar Gond & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ravindra Nath Yadav, Sri Akhilesh
Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Alok Mishra

A. Service Law - Appointment of Class-III
Employees - Validity of Selection Process
- Appellants challenged the reinSt.ment of four
Class-III employees (Lab Assistants, Routine
Clerk, Library Clerk) whose appointments were
cancelled due to the participation of an
Officiating Principal in the selection committee
instead of the regular Principal - Held, the
regular Principal was under suspension, and the
Officiating Principal, Dr. Phool Chandra Singh,
was duly authorized to participate in the
recruitment process - The selection committee
was validly constituted under the statutes of
Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, and
the objection to the Officiating Principal's
participation was baseless - Cancellation of
appointments
by
the
Director
and
Authorized Controller was erroneous, as no
disciplinary
enquiry
or
opportunity
of
hearing was provided, violating natural
justice. (Paras 4, 9, 10, 11, 12)

B. Service Law - Natural Justice -
Cancellation
of
Appointments
-
The
appointments of Class-III employees, approved
by the Regional Higher Education Officer on
25.11.2004, were cancelled without conducting
a
disciplinary
enquiry
or
providing
an
opportunity of hearing - Held, such cancellation
was impermissible and arbitrary, as it lacked
procedural fairness - Learned Single Judge
rightly set aside the cancellation orders dated
26.3.2009 (Director), 2.6.2010 (Principal), and
18.6.2010 (Authorized Controller) - ReinSt.ment
of employees upheld, as the selection process