# Kailash Chaudhary v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 11 ILRA 141
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-10-05
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 5720 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kailash-chaudhary-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45376
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law
-
Appointment
-
Suppression of material information - The
information sought by the employer if not
disclosed as required, would definitely
amount
to
suppression
of
material
information - The pendency of a criminal
case/proceeding is different from suppressing
the information of such pendency. The case
pending against a person might not involve
moral
turpitude
but
suppressing
of
this
information itself amounts to moral turpitude.
(Para 16)

The petitioner was fully aware of the pendency
of the multiple criminal cases against him. It
was observed that the declaration was false and
made with the deliberate intention to mislead
the authority and to secure employment in the
police. The suppression of the fact of pendency
of multiple criminal cases thus assumed
significance,
and
became
a
material
consideration for invalidation of his candidature.
The candidature of the petitioner was liable to
invalidated, and was rightly cancelled by the
competent authority. (Para 14)

Personnel in uniform belonging to disciplined
forces, are expected to bear impeccable
character
and
to
possess
unimpeachable
integrity. No relaxation or compromise with the
highest standards of character and integrity can
be permitted. (Para 15)

Writ Petition dismissed. ( E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

11 All. Kailash Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
141
(2020)11ILR A141
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.10.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ-A No. 5720 of 2019

Kailash Chaudhary ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ishan Deo Giri

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A.
Service
Law
-
Appointment
-
Suppression of material information - The
information sought by the employer if not
disclosed as required, would definitely
amount
to
suppression
of
material
information - The pendency of a criminal
case/proceeding is different from suppressing
the information of such pendency. The case
pending against a person might not involve
moral
turpitude
but
suppressing
of
this
information itself amounts to moral turpitude.
(Para 16)

The petitioner was fully aware of the pendency
of the multiple criminal cases against him. It
was observed that the declaration was false and
made with the deliberate intention to mislead
the authority and to secure employment in the
police. The suppression of the fact of pendency
of multiple criminal cases thus assumed
significance,
and
became
a
material
consideration for invalidation of his candidature.
The candidature of the petitioner was liable to
invalidated, and was rightly cancelled by the
competent authority. (Para 14)

Personnel in uniform belonging to disciplined
forces, are expected to bear impeccable
character
and
to
possess
unimpeachable
integrity. No relaxation or compromise with the
highest standards of character and integrity can
be permitted. (Para 15)

Writ Petition dismissed. ( E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Avtar Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors., (2016) 8 SCC
471 (Para 5, 6, 13)

2. Devendra Kumar Vs. St. of Uttaranchal,
(2013) 9 SCC 363 (Para 16)

Present petition challenges order dated
28.01.2019, by which the petitioner's
candidature for appointment on the post
of Constable in the U.P. Police, has been
invalidated.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. By the order dated 28.01.2019, the
candidature
of
the
petitioner
for
appointment on the post of Constable in the
U.P. Police, has been invalidated.

2. The impugned order dated
28.01.2019 records that the petitioner had
tendered a declaration on oath in the form
of an affidavit sworn on 11.06.2018,
wherein he categorically asserted that (i) no
criminal cases were pending against him,
(ii) no criminal case was registered against
him in his knowledge (iii) no police
investigation was pending against him (iv)
the petitioner has never been arrested in
any criminal case. The said declaration in
the form of an affidavit also asserts that in
future if any of the aforesaid facts are
found to be false or it is found that the
petitioner had suppressed any material
facts, the petitioner shall not be permitted
to join training course and his candidature
shall be invalidated.

3. The petitioner suppressed the
details of three criminal cases pending
142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
against him in the aforesaid declaration on
oath regarding the pendency of the criminal
cases.
The
impugned
order
dated
28.01.2019 cancelled the candidature of the
petitioner on the foot of suppression of
material facts and assertion of false facts.

4. Shri Ishan Deo Giri, learned
counsel for the petitioner fairly contends
that the petitioner admittedly did not
disclose the pendency of the three criminal
cases, while filing the declaration on oath
in the form of an affidavit. He, however
submits that the aforesaid facts were not
relevant at the time of passing of the
impugned order dated 28.01.2019 due to
following reasons:

"I. The petitioner was acquitted
in Case Crime No. 801/2012, under
Sections 147/148/452/323/504 and 506
I.P.C,
registered
at
Police
Station
Sadabad, District Hathras.

II. The investigation of the Case
Crime No. 849/2012, under Sections
110G UP Goondas Act, at Police Station
Sadabad, District Hathras, had been
concluded.

III.
The
Case
Crime
No.
1020/2017,
under
Sections
147/148/149/307/354/325/504 and 506
I.P.C. at Police Station Sadabad, District
Hathras, was compromised between the
parties and the proceedings were quashed
by orders of this Court."

5. These facts were overlooked by
the
respondents
while
passing
the
impugned order. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further contends that the case
of the petitioner may be considered in
light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union
of India and Ors. reported at 2016 (8)
SCC 471.

6. Per contra, Shri Birendra Pratap
Singh, learned Standing Counsel submits
that the suppression of the facts of
criminal cases was wilful. The petitioner
was being tried for commission of grave
offences in the three criminal cases. The
petitioner was never acquitted honourably
and the fact of the prosecution was never
wiped out. Learned Standing Counsel
also placed reliance on the case of Avtar
Singh (supra) to contend that this writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

8. After the selection of the petitioner
for appointment on the post of Constable in
the U.P. Police, the verification of character
and antecedents of the petitioner was made
by the State authorities. At the stage of
verification the petitioner was required to
submit a declaration on oath in an affidavit.
The
petitioner
made
the
required
declaration in an affidavit which was sworn
on 11.06.2018. The relevant parts of the
said declaration made on affidavit are
extracted hereinunder:

"2- यह प्क मेरे प्वरूद्ध कोई
अपराप्धक मुकिमा / मामला मेर िानकार में
कभ पिंि कृत नह हुआ है। और न ह कोई
पुप्लस प्ववेचना (INVESTIGATION) लल्कम्बत
है ।

3- यह प्क मैं प्कस रािर प्वरोध
रािनैप्तक पाटी क कभ भ सिस्य नह रहा
हूँ।

4- यह प्क मुझे कभ भ प्कस
अपराप्धक मामले में प्गरफ्तार नह प्कया गया
है।"

9. The impugned order dated
28.01.2019 notices the following criminal
11 All. Kailash Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
143
cases against the petitioner were pending
when the said declaration was made:

"I. Case Crime No. 801/2012,
under Sections 147/148/452/323/504 and
506 I.P.C, at Police Station Sadabad,
District Hathras.

II. Case Crime No. 849/2012,
under Sections 110G UP Goondas Act, at
Police Station Sadabad, District Hathras.

III. Case Crime No. 1020/2017,
under
Sections
147/148/149/307/354/325/504
and
506
I.P.C. at Police Station Sadabad, District
Hathras."

10. The order impugned lastly records
that a criminal case has already been
registered against the petitioner as Case
Crime No. 26 of 2019, under Sections 420
and 465 I.P.C. at Police Station Civil Lines,
District Etawah, on 21.01.2019, for giving
false declaration on oath in an affidavit.

11. It is admitted that three criminal
cases were pending against the petitioner
on the date of swearing of the aforesaid
affidavit, i.e. on 11.06.2018, which were
not disclosed in the affidavit.

Case Crime No. 801 of 2012,
under Sections 147/148/452/323/504 and
506 I.P.C, at Police Station Sadabad,
District Hathras, against the petitioner went
to trial. The pendency of the case under the
Goonda Act is also undisputed. Third case
i.e. Case Crime No. 1020 of 2017, pending
against the petitioner was under Sections
147, 148, 307, 323, 354, 325, 504 and 506
I.P.C. These are grave offences. The
petitioner had approached this Court with
an Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
registered as Application U/S 482 No.
24525 of 2018, Girraj Singh and Others Vs.
State of UP and another. The said
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was
decided by the judgment and order
rendered by this Court on 23.07.2018. The
same is extracted below:

"Heard learned counsel for the
applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and
Sri O.B. Mishra, learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2.

The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashing the cognizance order dated
30.1.2018 as well as charge sheet dated
7.1.2018 alongwith entire Criminal Case
No. 736 of 2018 (State vs. Girraj and
others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1020
of
2017,
under
Sections
147,148,149,307,323,354,325,504,506
I.P.C. P.S. Sadabad Kotwali, District
Hathras pending in the court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Hathras.

Learned
counsel
for
the
applicants submitted that compromise has
been entered into between the applicants
and the respondent no.2, Indra Devi on
27.6.2018 which is authenticated by
Annexure
no.11
to
the
affidavit
accompanying this application.

Learned
counsel
for
the
applicants states that the matter has been
compromised and the respondent no. 2 does
not want to pursue the matter any further as
the matter has been amicably settled
between the parties, therefore, the present
case be finally decided.

In view of the above, the
applicants and respondent no. 2 do not
want to pursue the case any further as
stated by them. The matter has been
mutually settled between the parties,
therefore, no useful purpose would be
served in proceeding with the matter
further.

Thus, in view of the well settled
principles of law as laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003(4)
144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
SCC 675 (B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana)
as well as the Judgment of the Apex Court
reported in J.T., 2008(9) SC 192 (Nikhil
Merchant
Vs.
Central
Bureau
of
investigation and another), the proceedings
of the Criminal Case No. 736 of 2018,
arising out of Case Crime No. 1020 of
2017,
under
Sections
147,148,149,307,323,354,325,504,506
I.P.C., P.S.- Sadabad Kotwali, District-
Hathras and the impugned charge sheet as
well as cognizance order are hereby
quashed.

The
present
application
is
accordingly allowed."

12. The criminal proceedings were
quashed on the most grave charges on the
foot of a mutual agreement between two
private parties. Such compromise between
private parties and consequent quashment
of criminal proceedings by this Court, does
not amount to an honourable acquittal by a
court of law. The criminal proceedings of
Case Crime No. 1020 of 2017, under
Sections 147/148/149/307/354/325/504 and
506 I.P.C. at Police Station Sadabad,
District Hathras, on the contrary are
relevant material which were liable to be
considered while forming an opinion about
the criminal antecedents of the petitioner
and his suitability for employment in the
police force. The aforesaid material was
considered in the correct perspective while
passing the impugned order. In the facts of
this case, the aforesaid conduct is not
mitigating factor but has an aggravated
consequence on the antecedents of the
petitioner.

13. Further, I see merit in the
submission of the learned Standing Counsel
that the case of the petitioner is liable to be
dismissed in light of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh
(supra). The relevant part of the judgement
in Avtar Singh (supra) is extracted
hereinunder:

"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."

14. The petitioner was fully aware of
the pendency of the multiple criminal cases
against him. I find that the declaration was
false and made with the deliberate intention
to mislead the authority and to secure
employment in the police. The suppression
of the fact of pendency of multiple criminal
cases thus assumed significance, and
became
a
material
consideration
for
invalidation
of
his
candidature.
The
candidature of the petitioner was liable to
invalidated, and was rightly cancelled by
the competent authority.

15. The police is a disciplined force.
The police force is charged with the duty to
uphold the law and order in the State.
Personnel
is
uniform
belonging
to
disciplined forces, are expected to bear
impeccable
character
and
possess
unimpeachable integrity. Adherence to
these standards is required to enable them
to discharge their duties effectively and
retain the confidence of the public at large.
No relaxation or compromise with the
highest standards of character and integrity
can be permitted.

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal,
reported at 2013 (9) SCC 363, emphasized
11 All. Shaharoz Alam & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
145
the importance of utmost rectitude in
candidates applying for appointment in the
police force by holding as under:

"12. So far as the issue of
obtaining
the
appointment
by
misrepresentation is concerned, it is no
more res integra. The question is not
whether the applicant is suitable for the
post.
The
pendency
of
a
criminal
case/proceeding
is
different
from
suppressing
the
information
of
such
pendency. The case pending against a
person might not involve moral turpitude
but suppressing of this information itself
amounts to moral turpitude. In fact, the
information sought by the employer if not
disclosed as required, would definitely
amount
to
suppression
of
material
information. In that eventuality, the service
becomes liable to be terminated, even if
there had been no further trial or the
person
concerned
stood
acquitted/discharged. (emphasis supplied)"

17.

Judged
in
light of
such
requirements of the police force, the
candidature of the petitioner was found to
be unsuitable for appointment in the police
force. The impugned order is not liable to
be interfered with.

18. In the wake of the preceding
discussion, I am not persuaded to exercise
the discretionary jurisdiction vested under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
interfere with the impugned order dated
28.01.2019. The impugned order dated
28.01.2019 is upheld.

19. The writ petition is liable to be
dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2020)11ILR A145
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.09.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK AGARWAL, J.

Writ-A No. 6711 of 2020
And
Writ-A No. 6713 of 2020
And
Writ-A No. 6715 of 2020

Shaharoz Alam & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, Sri Samarath
Singh, Sri Sankalp Narain

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Pension - Uttar Pradesh
Retirement Benefits (Amendment) Rules,
2005; Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits
Rules, 1961; General Provident Fund
(Uttar
Pradesh)
Rules,
1985;
U.P.
Secondary Education Services Selection
Board Act, 1982: Section 33(c) - A person
whose name appears in the select list
does not acquire any indefeasible right of
appointment. Empanelment at the best is
a condition of eligibility for the purpose of
appointment and by itself does not
amount to selection or create a vested
right to be appointed. (Para 33, 34)

B. In a society which is governed by rule
of law, sympathies cannot override the
rules and regulations. (Para 32)

C. The ratio of one case cannot be
mechanically applied to another case
without having regard to the fact situation
and circumstances obtaining in two cases.
(Para 39, 40, 41, 42, 46)

D. While exercising the authority under
Articles
309,
310
and
311
of
the