# Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 441
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-30
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 579 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49151
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Post of Constable -
Selection
-
Acquittal
-
Criminal
proceeding u/s 376 IPC was initiated
against the petitioner after his selection -
Prosecutrix
admitted
that
she
made
wrong St.ment under pressure of her
brother and S.H.O. - Appointment claimed
in view of acquittal - Writ petition
dismissed with the opinion that acquittal
was not honourable - Validity challenged
- Held, the appellant was not acquitted
giving him the benefit of doubt. Rather,
the acquittal of the appellant was on
account of failure of the prosecution to
prove its case as the prosecutrix herself
had denied any incident - Avtar Singh's
case relied upon - Direction for fresh
consideration of the appellant's case
regarding
his
appointment
and
entitlement of service benefits was issued
- High Court also issued show cause
notice against the prosecutrix and her
father and brother for getting a false
criminal case registered. (Para 5, 8, 9, 11,
12 and 14)
Special appeal allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
441
(2023) 1 ILRA 441
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Special Appeal No. 579 of 2022

Rajendra Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ashok Khare (Sr. Adv.), Sri Ramanuj
Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Syed Ali Murtaza, A.G.A., Sri Ankit Gaur,
S.C.

A. Service Law - Post of Constable -
Selection
-
Acquittal
-
Criminal
proceeding u/s 376 IPC was initiated
against the petitioner after his selection -
Prosecutrix
admitted
that
she
made
wrong St.ment under pressure of her
brother and S.H.O. - Appointment claimed
in view of acquittal - Writ petition
dismissed with the opinion that acquittal
was not honourable - Validity challenged
- Held, the appellant was not acquitted
giving him the benefit of doubt. Rather,
the acquittal of the appellant was on
account of failure of the prosecution to
prove its case as the prosecutrix herself
had denied any incident - Avtar Singh's
case relied upon - Direction for fresh
consideration of the appellant's case
regarding
his
appointment
and
entitlement of service benefits was issued
- High Court also issued show cause
notice against the prosecutrix and her
father and brother for getting a false
criminal case registered. (Para 5, 8, 9, 11,
12 and 14)
Special appeal allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

1. Avtar Singh Vs U.O.I.& ors., (2016) 8 SCC
471
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.
&
Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. Order dated July 26, 2022 passed
by learned Single Judge has been impugned
by filing present intra-Court appeal.

2. The appellant was before this Court
impugning order dated November 21, 2020
passed by the Superintendent of Police,
Jalaun whereby the representation filed by
him was dismissed. It is a case in which the
appellant was selected to the post of
Constable vide selection list dated May 15,
2018. He received call letter dated June 9,
2018 for medical checkup and completion
of other formalities. In terms thereof, the
appellant was to appear for medical
examination on June 12, 2018. The
admitted case of the appellant is that
immediately after coming to know about
his selection as a Constable, his enemies in
the village became active and a false First
Information Report (hereinafter referred to
as 'FIR') was registered against him on July
3, 2018 under Section 354A(1)(iv) of IPC.
The allegation in the FIR is that the present
appellant namely, the accused named in the
FIR, has enticed the prosecutrix inside his
house and used certain obscene words.
Even in the statement got recorded by the
prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she
reiterated the stand taken in the complaint
made to the police, on the basis of which
FIR was registered. Thereafter, statement
of the prosecutrix was recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she improved
from the version as contained in the FIR
and it was added that she was molested and
she was ravished with use of force by the
442 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accused (appellant herein). The aforesaid
statement was recorded on July 5, 2018.
Thereafter, medical examination of the
prosecutrix was conducted on July 7, 2018.
No injury was found on any part of her
body.

3. The appellant faced trial. While
getting her statement recorded in the Court,
the prosecutrix stated that nothing, as stated
in her statement to the police at the time of
registration of FIR or what was stated in
her statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C., had happened. She had not lodged
complaint
and
her
statements
were
recorded under pressure of her brother and
father. As a result of which, the charges
having not been proved, the accused,
namely the present appellant was acquitted
vide judgment and order dated January 27,
2020 passed by the learned Special Judge,
POCSO Act.

4. Immediately after acquittal of the
appellant, he made a representation to the
competent authority on February 3, 2020
for
consideration
of
his
case
for
appointment as a Constable. As the same
was not decided, Writ Petition No. 3076 of
2020 was filed, which was disposed of on
March 3, 2020 with a direction to
respondent no. 4 therein for decision of the
representation made by the appellant within
a period of three months. As the
representation was not decided in a time
bound manner as directed by this Court,
Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4159 of
2020 was filed. The same was disposed of
on November 2, 2020 giving one more
opportunity to the respondents for disposal
of the representation within a period of six
weeks from the date of production of a
copy
of
the
order.
Thereafter,
the
representation
was
disposed
of
on
November 21, 2020 rejecting the claim of
the appellant. It is the aforesaid order,
which was challenged before the learned
Single Judge.

5. Learned Single Judge, with the
opinion that the acquittal of appellant was
not honourable. Considering the serious
charges levelled against him, who had to
become part of a disciplined force, he does
not deserve to be given any concession and
dismissed the writ petition.

6. The argument raised by Mr. Khare,
Senior Advocate is that it is a case in which
the prosecutrix improved her statement
from what has been made at the time of
registration of the F.I.R. and statement
recorded
under
Section
161
Cr.P.C.
Initially, there was no allegation of rape
and
subsequently
while
getting
her
statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C., it was added. During the trial, she
categorically stated that no incident as
reported to the police, initially on the basis
of which F.I.R. was registered, or what was
stated by her in the statement recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C., had happened.
In fact, her statement was due to the
pressure built by her brother and father to
settle their personal scores, hence, it was
not a case of giving benefit of doubt to the
appellant, rather acquittal was honourable
as the prosecution has failed to prove the
charges. It is further pointed out by learned
counsel for the appellant that at the time of
registration of FIR the prosecutrix is shown
to be a minor, whereas in evidence it was
found that on the date of alleged incident,
she was 19 years of age.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the State could not dispute the aforesaid
factual matrix of the matter, however, he
still tried to support the order passed by the
learned Single Judge.
1 All. Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
443

8. The principles regarding the right
to be appointed in government service,
where the background of a candidate
indicates involvement in a criminal case
were laid down by the Supreme Court in
Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and
others, (2016) 8 SCC 471. In Avtar
Singh's
case
(supra),
the
following
principles have been enumerated :

"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
the application/verification form and such
fact later comes to knowledge of employer,
any of thefollowing recourses appropriate
to the case may be adopted :

38.4.1 In case a 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
444 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 suppression veri or suggestio falsi,
knowledge of the fact must be attributable
to him."

9. After hearing learned counsel for
the parties, we find merit in the submission
made by learned counsel for the appellant.
It is a case in which it is evident from the
record that the prosecutrix initially got the
F.I.R. registered with the allegation of use
of certain obscene words by the accused
while taking her to his residence while she
was out to trace out her younger brother.
The aforesaid stand was reiterated by her
while getting her statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, two days
thereafter, she got her statement recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. where the
allegation
against
the
appellant
was
improved and the case of outraging her
modesty was sought to be made out
including the allegation under Section 376
Cr.P.C. Initially, FIR was registered under
Section 354A(1)(4) of IPC. However, later
on, the charges under Section 376 IPC and
Section 4 of POCSO Act were added.
However, while appearing in the Court as a
witness, she stated that on July 2, 2018 at
about 3 P.M., no incident happened with
her as was reported to the police. As the
statement of the prosecutrix recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. was not available, her
evidence was deferred. On the next date of
hearing, she again reiterated that the
appellant had not done anything with her
and she had got the FIR registered under
pressure of her brother on account of
certain disputes between the families, as
her brother had beaten her up and also
threatened to kill her. She also denied her
statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
though bearing her signature stating that
signature was taken on a blank paper.
Though, she had admitted her photograph
and signature made on the statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C., but when confronted
in Court, she stated that the aforesaid
wrong statement was also made by her
under pressure of her brother and father.
She also stated that before getting her
statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C., she was threatened even by the
Police Constable and S.H.O. that in case,
she will not state in the manner as they
propose, she will be put to jail. She also
1 All. Dr. Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
445
stated that appellant was selected to the
post of Constable. He had to join on July
11, 2018. She got the F.I.R. registered
under pressure of her family members so
that he may not be able to join the service.
No incident, as stated by her in the FIR or
in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,
has ever happened.

10. The stand taken by the prosecutrix
in
her
statement
in
the
Court
is
corroborated from the medical evidence
wherein no injury mark was found on any
part of her body.

11. From perusal of the judgment of
the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), it
is evident that the appellant was not
acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt.
Rather, the acquittal of the appellant was
on account of failure of the prosecution to
prove its case as the prosecutrix herself had
denied any incident on the basis of which
FIR was registered.

12. Considering the aforesaid facts, in
our view, order dated November 21, 2020
passed by the Superintendent of Police,
Jalaun rejecting the claim of the appellant
for giving appointment after his acquittal in
the trial, is illegal. The aforesaid order as
well as the order passed by the learned
Single Judge dismissing the writ petition
are set aside. The respondents are directed
to consider the case of the appellant afresh,
keeping in view the fact that the appellant
was acquitted, within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy
of the order. It is made clear that the
appellant shall be entitled to all service
benefits from the date of joining.

13. From the judgment passed by
the Special Judge, POCSO Act, it is
evident that the appellant was not at all
involved in the incident, hence, it cannot
be said to be a case in which the appellant
was involved in a case of moral
turpitude.

14. However, before parting with
the case, we deem it appropriate to issue
show cause notices to the prosecutrix in
FIR No. 0185 of 2018, Police StationCharkhari, District-Mahoba for getting a
false case registered against the appellant,
the incident of which she had denied in
Court, and as well as to her father Ratan
Singh
and
brother
Sandeep,
which
according
to
the
prosecutrix
were
instrumental in pressurizing her to get a
false
case
registered,
as
to
why
appropriate proceedings may not be
initiated against them for getting a false
criminal case registered.

15. Let service on the aforesaid
persons
be
effected
through
Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba.

16. The present Special Appeal is
allowed to the extent as mentioned above.
However, for considering the notices
issued to the prosecutrix, her father and
brother, the appeal shall be listed before
the Court on January 17, 2023.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 445
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Special Appeal No. 607 of 2022

Dr. Anju Chaudhary ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents