# Manendra Singh v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 81
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-15
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 45098 of 2017
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manendra-singh-v-union-of-india-ors-47628
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
Recruitment
-
Concealment of material information - 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. (Para 17)

The crucial question which, therefore,
needs be answered is whether the lodging
of the F.I.R. could result in the petitioner
being liable to answer the question w.r.t.
82 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
a case pending against them in a court of
law in the affirmative. (Para 15)

It is important to note that the attestation
form did not require the petitioner to
disclose the registration of the F.I.R. No
part of para 12 of attestation form obliged the
petitioner to disclose information w.r.t. a FIR
that may have existed. Paragraph 12 specifically
required the petitioner to truthfully declare
whether he had either been convicted or if any
case was pending against him in a court of law.
Undisputedly the petitioner does not stand
convicted in the criminal cases of which
reference is made in the impugned order. The
mere existence of a FIR did not, therefore,
oblige the petitioner to answer either of these
questions in paragraph 12 in the affirmative. As
has been noted, the impugned order does not
rest on the allegation that the petitioner was
arrested, detained or fined in connection with
the criminal case.

While it cannot be therefore said that the
petitioners had suppressed material information,
it is still open to the respondents to adjudge his
suitability for appointment in the force since
knowledge of the criminal case has come to
light, albeit during the course of verification. On
an overall consideration of the aforesaid
aspects, it is manifest that the impugned order
cannot be sustained. (Para 13, 17, 18)

B. Before a person is held guilty of
suppressio
veri
or
suggestio
falsi,
knowledge
of
the
fact
must
be
attributable to him. (Para 17)

In the present case, it is clear that Case Crime
No. 35 of 2011 u/Ss.323, 504 and 506 I.P.C.
was registered but it is not clear that on which
date, the Court concerned took cognizance on
the aforesaid case and even though the Court
had taken cognizance and if so presume, then it
cannot be stated that there was a case
pending against the petitioner in the Court
of law since the petitioner was never
informed at any point of time regarding
pendency of the aforesaid case before
submission of attestation form. (Para 16)

This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner
has neither concealed any material information
while filling up his attestation form deliberately
nor is there any wilful intention to suppress the
material facts. (Para 20)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

10 All. Manendra Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
81
िी चकया चज े िशा हो गया और बरेली जािे वाली
टरेि में जब बैठे र्ब अचियुक्तगण कोल्ड चिरिंक्स के
बहािे हथकडी िोल कर िाग गये और आरक्षीगण
रेलगाडी में मदहोश होकर ोर्े रहे। उपरोक्त
र्थ्ात्मक पररणाम को अिुच्छेद 226 के अन्तगार्
 ीचमर् मीक्षा का अचधकार के अिंर्गार् अमान्य िहीिं
चकया जा कर्ा।

17. जै ा की ऊपर चवचध का उल्लेि चकया
गया है चक ' िंिाविा की प्रबलर्ा' के च द्धान्त व इ
न्यायालय द्वारा अपीलीय अचधकारी की र्रह शखक्त
का उपयोग ि करिे के कारण उपरोक्त र्थ्ात्मक
पररणाम में हस्तक्षेप िहीिं चकया जा कर्ा है।
अिुशा िात्मक कायावाही में चक ी िी प्रकार का
दोि िहीिं है। िै चगाक न्याय के च द्धान्तोिं का पूणा रुप
 े पररपालि चकया गया। आरक्षीगण िे यह मािा है
चक उन्होिे शराब का ेवि चकया चज े वो मदहोश
हो गये चज का लाि उठाकर अपराधीगण फरार हो
गये। उपरोक्त र्थ् की पुचि हेेे.कािं. चदखिजय शमाा
के ाक्ष्य े पूणा रुप े होर्ी है।

18. अर्ः जािंि आख्या व अिुशा चिक
अचधकारी द्वारा चलये गये चिणाय, चज के द्वारा
आरक्षीगण द्वारा चकया गया कृर् च द्ध होर्ा है व
उिके कृर् े अिुशा िहीिर्ा, घोर लापरवाही,
अकमाण्यर्ा का पररिय होर्ा है, में कोई िी चवचधक
त्रुचट िहीिं है।

19. अन्त में न्यायालय को यह चविार करिा है
चक क्ा दण्ड आश्चयाजिक रुप े अिुपार्हीि है।
आरक्षीगण का यह कर्ाव्य था चक वो अपराचधयोिं को
 कुशल मुरादाबाद े वाप बरेली ले कर आर्े।
परन्तु उन्होिे घोर लापरवाही की व अपराधीगण के
 ाथ ि केवल उिके ररश्तेदार के घर गये बखल्क
उिके ाथ होटल में िािा िाया और अचधक मात्रा
में शराब का ेवि चकया, चज े उिको इर्िा िी
होश िहीिं रहा चक अपराधीगण हथकडी िोल फरार
हो गये व आरक्षीगण मदहोश होकर ोये रहे। यह
कृर् ि केवल अिुशा िहीिर्ा का द्योर्क है अचपर्ु
कर्ाव्य के प्रचर् घोर लापरवाही व अकमाण्यर्ा का
पररिय है। अर्ः ' ेवा े हटािे' का दण्ड चक ी िी
प्रकार े अिुपार्हीि िहीिं है। अर्ः दण्ड चवचधक रुप
 े मान्य है। इ में चक ी िी प्रकार े हस्तक्षेप िहीिं
चकया जा कर्ा।

20. उपरोक्त चवश्लेिण का एक ही चिष्किा है
चक दोिोिं याचिकायें चिरस्त चकये जािे योग्य है। अर्ः
चिरस्त की जार्ी है।
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 81
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ-A No. 45098 of 2017

Manendra Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Tejasvi Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra

A.
Service
Law
-
Recruitment
-
Concealment of material information - 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. (Para 17)

The crucial question which, therefore,
needs be answered is whether the lodging
of the F.I.R. could result in the petitioner
being liable to answer the question w.r.t.
82 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
a case pending against them in a court of
law in the affirmative. (Para 15)

It is important to note that the attestation
form did not require the petitioner to
disclose the registration of the F.I.R. No
part of para 12 of attestation form obliged the
petitioner to disclose information w.r.t. a FIR
that may have existed. Paragraph 12 specifically
required the petitioner to truthfully declare
whether he had either been convicted or if any
case was pending against him in a court of law.
Undisputedly the petitioner does not stand
convicted in the criminal cases of which
reference is made in the impugned order. The
mere existence of a FIR did not, therefore,
oblige the petitioner to answer either of these
questions in paragraph 12 in the affirmative. As
has been noted, the impugned order does not
rest on the allegation that the petitioner was
arrested, detained or fined in connection with
the criminal case.

While it cannot be therefore said that the
petitioners had suppressed material information,
it is still open to the respondents to adjudge his
suitability for appointment in the force since
knowledge of the criminal case has come to
light, albeit during the course of verification. On
an overall consideration of the aforesaid
aspects, it is manifest that the impugned order
cannot be sustained. (Para 13, 17, 18)

B. Before a person is held guilty of
suppressio
veri
or
suggestio
falsi,
knowledge
of
the
fact
must
be
attributable to him. (Para 17)

In the present case, it is clear that Case Crime
No. 35 of 2011 u/Ss.323, 504 and 506 I.P.C.
was registered but it is not clear that on which
date, the Court concerned took cognizance on
the aforesaid case and even though the Court
had taken cognizance and if so presume, then it
cannot be stated that there was a case
pending against the petitioner in the Court
of law since the petitioner was never
informed at any point of time regarding
pendency of the aforesaid case before
submission of attestation form. (Para 16)

This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner
has neither concealed any material information
while filling up his attestation form deliberately
nor is there any wilful intention to suppress the
material facts. (Para 20)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Avtar Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors., 2016 (8) SCC
471 (Para 4)

2. Kalamuddin Ansari & anr. Vs U.O.I. & ors.,
Writ-A
No.
33265
of
2017,
decided
on
31.10.2018 (Para 21)

Present
petition
assails
discharge
letter/order dated 15.03.2017, passed by
IG-Cum-Chief
Security
Commissioner/
RPF, Eastern Railway, Kolkata.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred the
present
petition
with
the
following
prayers:-

(A) Issue writ, order or direction
in the nature of Certiorari quashing
impugned
discharge
letter
dated
15.03.2017 (annexure No.4) of this petition

(B) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondent(s) to reinstate
the petitioner into services, with all
consequential benefits.

3. Facts in brief as contained in the
petition are that an advertisement being
Advertisement No.1/2011 was issued by
the respondent No.3 for recruitment on the
post of Constable (G.D.) in Railway
Protection Special Force. Pursuant to the
aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner
submitted his application form and he
received Admit Card for appearing in the
10 All. Manendra Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
83
said examination. The petitioner duly
appeared in the examination and qualified
the same. Subsequently, the petitioner
received appointment letter wherein he was
directed to join his training at Panjab Police
Taining Center Jahankalan on 01.11.2014..
During the period of training, the Police
Verification Report was sought from the
District Magistrate Pratapgarh regarding
pendency of any criminal case against the
petitioner. A report was submitted in this
regard stating therein that Case Crime
No.35 of 2011 under Sections 323, 504 and
506 I.P.C. was registered against the
petitioner on 03.05.2011 at Jethwara Police
Station, Pratapgarh in which local police
has taken action under Section 110(G) of
Cr.P.C. but the petitioner did not disclose
the aforesaid information in Column No.12
of the attestation form, hence his selection
is liable to be cancelled. After the aforesaid
report, the petitioner was discharged from
his training and in this regard a letter was
served upon the petitioner on 27.04.2015.
Aggrieved
against
the
aforesaid,
the
petitioner filed a petition before this Court
being Writ A No.45626 of 2015 (Manendra
Singh and another Vs. Union of India and
others) and the aforesaid writ petition was
finally decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court vide its judgement and order
dated 06.12.2016. Pursuant to the aforesaid
order, the petitioner was called for personal
hearing on 11.01.2017 and after hearing the
petitioner, the respondent No.4 passed the
order dated 15.03.2017 cancelling the
candidature of the petitioner on the ground
of intentional suppression of the material
fact while filling up his attestation form.
Aggrieved
against
the
order
dated
15.03.2017, the petitioner preferred the
present writ petition.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for
the petitioner that insofar as Case Crime
No.35 of 2011 under Sections 323, 504 &
506 I.P.C. is concerned, the petitioner has
absolutely no information. It is further
stated in the writ petition that neither any
information in this regard was ever served
upon the petitioner nor he was ever chargesheeted in the aforesaid case. It is stated in
paragraph 14 of the writ petition that the
order passed by respondent No.4 dated
15.03.2017 is hit by the equality clause
enshrined in the Constitution of India since
on similar facts, candidatures of various
candidates were found to be fit and they
were reinstated. The names of candidates
are Subhash Kumar, Bittu Jaiswal, Mehdi
Hasan and Kuldeep Kumar and the orders
passed for reinstatement of them were
appended as Annexure Nos.5, 5A, 5B and
5C to the writ petition respectively. It is
argued that the candidature of the petitioner
was rejected in view of the fact that correct
facts were not disclosed by the petitioner in
Column 12 of the Attestation Form. It is
argued by learned counsel for the petitioner
that there is no cloumn in the Attestation
Form regarding declaration of only F.I.R.
and as such there is no suppression of
material facts, therefore, it is wrong to say
that
any
fact
whatsoever
has
been
suppressed by the petitioner. It is further
argued that in identical circumstance, only
on the basis of lodging of F.I.R.,
candidatures of various candidates were
cancelled but after orders were passed by
this Court in the writ petitions filed by
them, speaking orders were passed by the
authorities in their favour and permitting
them to join their duties. The orders were
passed by the authorities in favour of those
candidates mentioning therein that there is
no column in the Attestation Form
regarding
declaration
of
only
F.I.R.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also
relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble
Supreme Court passed in the case of Avtar
84 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Singh Vs. Union of India and others 2016
(8) SCC 471.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of the respondents. In Paragraph
(6) of the counter affidavit, it is stated that
the petitioner has not mentioned in his
attestation
form
about
pendency
of
Criminal Case as "No". It is further stated
in the counter affidavit that the attestation
form of petitioner was sent for verification
to the District Magistrate Pratapgarh
regarding his character & antecedents. The
District Magistrate Pratapgarh forwarded
the same to the Jethwara Police Station. A
report was submitted by the Jethwara
Police Station which was duly endorsed by
the Superintendent of Police Pratapgarh in
which it is mentioned that N.C.R. No.35/11
dated 03.05.2011 under Sections 323, 504
& 506 IPC was registered against the
petitioner and the local police has taken
action on the basis of the aforesaid report
on 23.05.2011 under Section 110 (G)
Cr.P.C. and thereafter a case was registered
as Case Crime No.161 of 2011 under
Sections 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C.

6. It is argued that since the aforesaid
facts were not disclosed by the petitioner in
Column 12 of the Attestation Form
correctly, therefore, his candidature was
rightly cancelled.

7. In response to the counter affidavit,
a rejoinder affidavit has been filed. The
contents of Paragraph 6 of the counter
affidavit has been denied in paragraph 4 of
the rejoinder affidavit. It is stated that the
petitioner has absolutely no information
regarding lodging of F.I.R. at the time
filling of the attestation form. It is argued
that the petitioner first time came to know
regarding the aforesaid fact when he was
discharged
from
training.
When
he
received the discharge order, then he knew
that a criminal case was pending against
him since 2011 and in this view of the
matter it is wrong to say that any material
fact has been concealed by the petitioner
while filling up the attestation form. It is
further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that
the petitioner was neither arrested nor any
police personal had ever approached him
for investigation regarding the aforesaid
case, therefore, the petitioner could nor
filled up in the attestation form regarding
the pendency of the aforesaid case. It is
further stated in rejoinder affidavit that no
prosecution has ever been initiated against
him. It is further stated in rejoinder
affidavit
that
the
respondents
have
considered the case of various similarly
placed candidates and all of them also
provided joining on a premise that there is
no column in attestation form which
requires disclosure of F.I.R.

8. After exchange of counter and
rejoinder affidavits, this Court passed order
dated 13.12.2018 directing the petitioner to
file
further
supplementary
affidavit
disclosing whether the petitioner was ever
arrested or detained in respect of the
aforesaid case crime number in question at
any time prior to the execution of the
attestation form.

9. In response to the same, a
supplementary affidavit has been filed by
the
petitioner
on
06.03.2019.
In
paragraph
5
of
the
aforesaid
supplementary affidavit, it is stated that
the petitioner was neither arrested nor
prosecuted. It is further stated that the
petitioner was never detained nor any fine
was ever imposed upon him at any point
of time by any Court of law. It is further
stated that since the petitioner has never
been convicted for any offence, hence
10 All. Manendra Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
85
Clause (f) of Column No.12, he again
replied in negative. In this view of the
matter, it is argued by learned counsel for
the petitioner that reply tendered by the
petitioner in paragraph 12(a) to (12)(f) in
the attestation form
was absolutely
correct. Insofar Case Crime No.35 of
2011 is concerned, the petitioner has
absolutely
no
knowledge
about
it
inasmuch as neither any police personal
ever contacted nor he was ever examined
under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

10. In reply to the aforesaid
affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit
has been filed by the respondents. In
paragraph 3 of the aforesaid affidavit, it
is again reiterated that the petitioner
deliberately
suppressed
the
factual
information regarding registration of
Police
Case
to
mislead
the
Administration. It is further argued that
the verification of the character and
antecedents is one of the important
criteria to test whether the selected
candidate is suitable for the post of
constable in the disciplined force like
R.P.F. as per Rule 52 of R.P.F. Rule
1987.

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

12. Pursuant to the advertisement
No.1 of 2011, the petitioner submitted the
application form for recruitment on the
post of Constable, the petitioner was
directed to submit attestation form, copy
of which is appended along with counter
affidavit filed by the respondents. In
paragraph 12 of the aforesaid attestation
form, the petitioner was directed to
submit
various
informations.
The
information seeking in tthe Column 12 of
the Attestation Form are quoted below:-

"12. (a) Have you ever been
arrested? Yes/No

(b)
Have
you
ever
been
prosecuted? Yes/No

(c) Have you ever been kept
under detention? Yes/No

(d) Have you ever been bound
down? Yes/No

(e) Have you ever been fined by a
Court of law? Yes/No

(f) Have you ever been convicted
by a Court of Law for any offence? Yes/No

(g) Have you ever been debarred
from any examination or rusticated by any
University
or
any
other
educational
authority/institution? Yes/No

(h)
Have
you
ever
been
debarred/disqualified
by
any
Public
Service
Commission/Staff
Selection
Commission
for
any
of
their
examination/selection? Yes/No

(i) If any case pending against
you in any court of law at the time of filling
up this Attestation Form? Yes/No

(j) Is any case pending against
you in any University or any other
educational authority/institution at the time
of filling up this Attestation Form? Yes/No

(k)
Whether
discharged/expelled/withdrawn from any
training institution under the Govt. or
otherwise? Yes/No

(l) If the answer to any of the
above-mentioned question is "Yes", give
full
particulars
of
the
case/
arrest/detention/fine/conviction/sentence
/punishment/acquittal etc. and/or the name
of the case pending in the Court/
University/Educational Authority etc. at the
time of filling up this Form? Yes/No"

13. As it evident from the questions
comprised in paragraph 12, the petitioner
was called upon to disclose information in
respect of whether he had ever been
86 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
arrested, prosecuted, detained or fined by a
court of law. The further disclosures which
were required were in respect of whether he
had been convicted by a court of law for
any offence and whether any case in any
court of law at the time of filling up the
Attestation Form was pending. The other
clauses of paragraph 12 dealing with the
debarment from examinations or the
pendency of any case in a University or
other educational institution or whether the
candidate had been discharged, expelled or
withdrawn from any training institution are
really not relevant to the case at hand.

14. Having noticed the salient
questions comprised in paragraph 12, upon
which the allegations of non-disclosure is
liable to be tested, this Court notices that it
is not the case of the respondents that the
petitioner had been arrested, detained,
prosecuted or fined by a court of law. That
leaves the Court to only consider whether
the petitioner could be held guilty of
suppressing material information while
answering questions relating to whether he
had been convicted by a court of law for
any offence or whether any case was
pending against him at the time of filling
up of the Attestation Forms.

15. Undisputedly the petitioner does
not stand convicted in the criminal cases of
which reference is made in the impugned
order.
The
crucial
question
which,
therefore, needs be answered is whether the
lodging of the F.I.R. could result in the
petitioner being liable to answer the
question with respect to a case pending
against them in a court of law in the
affirmative.

16. Insofar as the present petition is
concerned, it is clear that Case Crime
No.35 of 2011 under Sections 323, 504 and
506 I.P.C. was registered but it is not clear
that on which date, the Court concerned
took cognizance on the aforesaid case and
even
though
the
Court
had
taken
cognizance and if so presume, then it
cannot be stated that there was a case
pending against the petitioner in the Court
of law since the petitioner was never
informed at any point of time regarding
pendency of the aforesaid case before
submission of attestation form.

17. In this regard, it is important to
note that the attestation form did not
require the petitioner to disclose the
registration of the F.I.R. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh
(supra) following principles ruled out:-

 "38. We have noticed various
decisions and tried to explain and reconcile
them as far as possible. In view of the
aforesaid discussion, we summarise 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
10 All. Manendra Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
87
the application/verification form and such
fact later comes to knowledge of employer,
any of the following recourses 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
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."

18. No part of paragraph 12 obliged
the petitioner to disclose information with
regard to a First Information Report that
may
have
existed.
Paragraph
12
specifically required the petitioner to
truthfully declare whether he had either
been convicted or if any case was pending
against him in a court of law. The mere
existence of a FIR did not, therefore, oblige
88 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the petitioner to answer either of these
questions
in
paragraph
12
in
the
affirmative. As has been noted, the
impugned order does not rest on the
allegation that the petitioner was arrested,
detained or fined in connection with the
criminal case. The case of the petitioner
would,
therefore,
squarely
fall
for
consideration in light of the principles
elucidated in paragraph 30(10) of Avtar
Singh (supra). While it cannot be therefore
said that the petitioners had suppressed
material information, it is still open to the
respondents to adjudge his suitability for
appointment in the force since knowledge
of the criminal case has come to light,
albeit during the course of verification. On
an overall consideration of the aforesaid
aspects, it is manifest that the impugned
order cannot be sustained.

19. From perusal of the record, this
Court is of the opinion that in similar
circumstances, where the fact regarding filing
of F.I.R. was not disclosed by the applicants,
orders were passed by the respondents for
reinstatement of them stating that there is no
cloumn in the Attestation Form regarding
declaration of only F.I.R. and as such there is
no suppression of material facts, therefore, it
is wrong to say that any fact whatsoever has
been suppressed by the applicant.

20. In the facts and circumstance of the
case as stated above, this Court is of the
opinion that the petitioner has not concealed
any material information while filling up his
attestation form deliberately or any wilful
intention to suppress the material facts.

21. Similar view was also taken by this
Court in Writ A No.33265 of 2017
(Kalamuddin Ansari And Another Vs.
Union Of India and others) decided on
31.10.2018.

22. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed and the discharge order dated
15.03.2017 passed by the respondent is
hereby set aside.

23. The matter stands remitted to the
respondents for deciding the claims of the
petitioner afresh and in light of the
observations
made
hereinabove.
The
aforesaid exercise be completed within a
period of two months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 88
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-B No. 34788 of 2005

Vidyawati ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Achal Singh Vats, Sri H.N. Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri M.S. Pandey, Sri V.K. Singh, Sri
Azad Rai

Gaon Sabha Manual, Para Nos. 128 & 131
- Provisions of para Nos.128 and 131 of
Gaon Sabha Manual are mandatory in
nature - Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti is
bound by the statutory duty to conduct
and prosecute legal proceedings by or on
behalf of Gram Panchayat - Ex-pradhan
not empowered to file second appeal
before Board of Revenue - The petitioner
filed suit under Section 229-B/122-B (4F)
of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act - suit was dismissed
by the trial court, in appeal suit was
decreed - the second appellate court
without condoning the delay in filing the