# Rajesh Kumar Singh v. The Union of India and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 1143
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-07-27
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.60896 of 2005
- **Bench:** A.P. Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajesh-kumar-singh-v-the-union-of-india-and-others-40759
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India-Art.
226Cancellation of Selection-Petitioner was
selected on the post of Police Constable
during Character verification it was
found that criminal case is pending-plea
that in application form only information
sought about the conviction in any
criminal case-as per notification dated
6.2.05 petitioner given false affidavitthat he never involved in any criminal
case-held-tendering
false
affidavit
a
clear impact on the character and
antecedent of a candidate-held-rightly
nor suited in Police service.

Held: Para 7 & 9

However, the matter does not stop here.
In the instant case the petitioner has
admitted the filing of an affidavit before
the respondents. It is not the case of the
petitioner that the affidavit was forcibly
demanded from him. In this view of the
matter, a clear inference can be drawn to
the effect that the petitioner voluntarily
submitted
the
said
affidavit.
The
petitioner is an educated person and it
cannot be presumed that the petitioner
filed the affidavit even without reading
the contents thereof. Paragraphs 4 and 5
of the affidavit clearly indicate the
tendering of a correct information in
respect of a pending case or a person
being arrested. The petitioner, therefore,
had tendered an incorrect information
through
the
said
affidavit.
The
explanation set up in the rejoinder
affidavit that such affidavits were filled
up en mass by all the candidates cannot
be an excuse for the petitioner to resile
back
from
an
incorrect
information
tendered by him. The filing of an
affidavit is a requirement for verifying
the antecedents and character of a
candidate.
The
facts
of
this
case
therefore are distinguishable from the
facts of the case decided by the Apex
court relied on by the learned counsel for
the petitioner. In view of this clear
distinction on facts, the ratio in Naidu's
Case (supra) will not come to the aid of
the petitioner.

Apart from this, learned standing counsel
relied on the case of Delhi Administration
Vs. Shushil Kumar, 1996 (II) S.C.C. 605
to urge that the acquittal or discharge of
a candidate has nothing to do with the
question of judging the antecedents and
character of a candidate. Inviting the
attention of the court to para 3 of the
said decision, learned standing counsel
has urged that what is relevant is the
conduct and character of a candidate to
be appointed and not the actual result of
the criminal case. From a perusal of the
aforesaid decisions, referred to herein
above, it can be said that the petitioner
was not fair in his disclosure. On the
contrary
the
affidavit
filed
by
the
petitioner amounts to tendering of a
false information and therefore, the
petitioner was rightly non suited for
employment in the Police services.
Case law discussed:
1997 (2) UPLBEC-1201
2005 (2) SCC-746
2003 (3) SCC-437
1997 (11) SCC-605
1144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006

## Text

3 All] Rajesh Kumar Singh V. The Union of India and others
1143
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.07.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.60896 of 2005

Krishna Kumar

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Neeraj Kanta Verma
Sri Siddharth Khare
Sri Avnish Kumar Srivastava
Sri Amit Srivastava
Sri Ashok Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri C.S. Singh
S.C.

Constitution
of
India-Art.
226Cancellation of Selection-Petitioner was
selected on the post of Police Constable
during Character verification it was
found that criminal case is pending-plea
that in application form only information
sought about the conviction in any
criminal case-as per notification dated
6.2.05 petitioner given false affidavitthat he never involved in any criminal
case-held-tendering
false
affidavit
a
clear impact on the character and
antecedent of a candidate-held-rightly
nor suited in Police service.

Held: Para 7 & 9

However, the matter does not stop here.
In the instant case the petitioner has
admitted the filing of an affidavit before
the respondents. It is not the case of the
petitioner that the affidavit was forcibly
demanded from him. In this view of the
matter, a clear inference can be drawn to
the effect that the petitioner voluntarily
submitted
the
said
affidavit.
The
petitioner is an educated person and it
cannot be presumed that the petitioner
filed the affidavit even without reading
the contents thereof. Paragraphs 4 and 5
of the affidavit clearly indicate the
tendering of a correct information in
respect of a pending case or a person
being arrested. The petitioner, therefore,
had tendered an incorrect information
through
the
said
affidavit.
The
explanation set up in the rejoinder
affidavit that such affidavits were filled
up en mass by all the candidates cannot
be an excuse for the petitioner to resile
back
from
an
incorrect
information
tendered by him. The filing of an
affidavit is a requirement for verifying
the antecedents and character of a
candidate.
The
facts
of
this
case
therefore are distinguishable from the
facts of the case decided by the Apex
court relied on by the learned counsel for
the petitioner. In view of this clear
distinction on facts, the ratio in Naidu's
Case (supra) will not come to the aid of
the petitioner.

Apart from this, learned standing counsel
relied on the case of Delhi Administration
Vs. Shushil Kumar, 1996 (II) S.C.C. 605
to urge that the acquittal or discharge of
a candidate has nothing to do with the
question of judging the antecedents and
character of a candidate. Inviting the
attention of the court to para 3 of the
said decision, learned standing counsel
has urged that what is relevant is the
conduct and character of a candidate to
be appointed and not the actual result of
the criminal case. From a perusal of the
aforesaid decisions, referred to herein
above, it can be said that the petitioner
was not fair in his disclosure. On the
contrary
the
affidavit
filed
by
the
petitioner amounts to tendering of a
false information and therefore, the
petitioner was rightly non suited for
employment in the Police services.
Case law discussed:
1997 (2) UPLBEC-1201
2005 (2) SCC-746
2003 (3) SCC-437
1997 (11) SCC-605
1144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.)

1. The petitioner has prayed for a
mandamus permitting the petitioner to
join training upon having been selected on
the post of constable in U.P. Police
Services.

2. The parties have exchanged
affidavits and it transpires that the
objection to the petitioner's candidature,
on verifying the character and antecedents
of the petitioner, it was found that the
petitioner had concealed the pendency of
a criminal case against him. A written
submission has also been filed by Sri
Sidharth Khare, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

3. The ground on which the action
of the respondents is being questioned is
that the character verification form as
prescribed by the respondents does not
contain any such clause calling upon the
candidate to declare that any criminal case
is pending against him. Learned counsel
has invited the attention of the court to
column no. 11 of the said verification
form, which is part of Annexure V to the
writ petition. A perusal of the same
indicates that the only question posed is
whether the concerned candidate has been
found guilty and convicted for any
offence by any court of law or not. In
view of this it is urged that there is no
such other requirement and therefore, the
stand taken by the respondents that the
petitioner
suppressed
this
fact
of
pendency of a case against him is
irrelevant. Coupled with this, it is urged
that the petitioner has been ultimately
acquitted in the said case vide judgment
dated 11.8.2005, a copy whereof is
annexure VI to the writ petition and an
information has been tendered to the
respondents later on.

4. The respondents in their counter
affidavit have stated that according to the
Notification dated 6.2.2005 the petitioner
was required to submit a public notary
affidavit and in the affidavit so tendered
by the petitioner, the aforesaid fact of the
pendency of the criminal cased against the
petitioner has not only been suppressed,
but a false statement has been made that
the petitioner was never involved in a
criminal case, nor was he apprehended
and prosecuted. The respondents have
filed the aforesaid directives contained in
the letter dated 6.2.2005 and a photo stat
copy of the affidavit filed by the
petitioner has also been appended as C.A.
2 to the counter affidavit. The petitioner
has filed a rejoinder affidavit wherein it is
urged that the affidavit was a standard
affidavit, which was filled up and typed
by the respondents on which the petitioner
had only put his signature, and for which
the petitioner cannot be held responsible
as the petitioner did not get the affidavit
prepared at his own level. It is also urged
that all the 375 candidates including the
petitioner were made to sign on similar
affidavit and therefore, the contents of the
said affidavit are not binding on the
petitioner. It is also urged that the said
circular dated 6.2.2005 was not made
known to the petitioner and had it been so
indicated, the petitioner might have taken
a precaution in this regard. It is further
urged that the petitioner cannot be held
responsible for any suppression of facts or
giving of false information to the
respondents.

5. Sri Sidhdharth Khare has relied
on two decisions in support of his
submission. The first is the decision in the
3 All] Krishna Kumar V. State of U.P. and others
1145
case of Qamrul Hoda Vs. Chief
Security
Commissioner,
1997
(2)
UPLBEC 1201 and the second decision
of the Apex court in the case of Secretary
Department of Home Andhra Pradesh
Vs. C.B. Naidu, 2005 (2) S.C.C. 746.

6. After having given my thoughtful
consideration to the aforesaid aspects, it
transpires that the verification form
required only a response to the question
posed therein, which was to the effect that
whether the candidate was convicted in a
criminal case or not. The petitioner
correctly replied to the query as "not"
inasmuch as the petitioner was not
convicted and was later on in the trial
acquitted as per the judgment brought on
record. To that extent the authority of the
Apex court relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner comes to his aid,
but the Apex court in C.B. Naidu's case
(supra) ultimately held that since the form
did not require furnishing of any further
information, in that event the candidate is
not required to indicate as to whether he
was arrested in any case or as to whether
any case was pending against him. The
Apex Court drew a distinction to the said
extent from the case of Kendriya
Vidhalaya Sanghathan Vs. Ram Ratan
Yadav, 2003 (3) S.C.C.437.

7. However, the matter does not stop
here. In the instant case the petitioner has
admitted the filing of an affidavit before
the respondents. It is not the case of the
petitioner that the affidavit was forcibly
demanded from him. In this view of the
matter, a clear inference can be drawn to
the effect that the petitioner voluntarily
submitted
the
said
affidavit.
The
petitioner is an educated person and it
cannot be presumed that the petitioner
filed the affidavit even without reading
the contents thereof. Paragraphs 4 and 5
of the affidavit clearly indicate the
tendering of a correct information in
respect of a pending case or a person
being arrested. The petitioner, therefore,
had tendered an incorrect information
through
the
said
affidavit.
The
explanation set up in the rejoinder
affidavit that such affidavits were filled
up en mass by all the candidates cannot be
an excuse for the petitioner to resile back
from an incorrect information tendered by
him. The filing of an affidavit is a
requirement for verifying the antecedents
and character of a candidate. The facts of
this case therefore are distinguishable
from the facts of the case decided by the
Apex court relied on by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. In view of this
clear distinction on facts, the ratio in
Naidu's Case (supra) will not come to the
aid of the petitioner.

8. The decision relied upon in
Qamrul Hoda's case also cannot be
pressed into service in view of the
converse view taken by the Apex court in
the
case
of
Kendriya
Vidhayalaya
Sanghathan (supra). In the said case, the
High Court drew a conclusion that the
candidate had not tendered incorrect
information as the criminal case instituted
against him had been with drawn by the
State Govt. and the case related to an
agitation by the students, which did not
involve any moral turpitude disqualifying
a candidate seeking employment. In
Qamrul Hoda's case also the petitioner
therein had participated in an agitation
against the visit of the then Chief Minister
of the State. The Apex court reversed the
view of the High Court stating therein that
the suppression of material facts and
making a false statement has a clear
impact of the charactyer and antecedents
1146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
of a candidate in relation to his service.
The court further held that the purpose of
seeking information was not to find out
the nature and gravity of the offence or
the ultimate result of the criminal case,
but for forming a view about the character
and antecedents of a candidate. In view of
the aforesaid position, Qamrul Hoda's
case relied on by the learned counsel for
the petitioner cannot advance the cause of
the petitioner.

9. Apart from this, learned standing
counsel relied on the case of Delhi
Administration Vs. Shushil Kumar,
1996 (II) S.C.C. 605 to urge that the
acquittal or discharge of a candidate has
nothing to do with the question of judging
the antecedents and character of a
candidate. Inviting the attention of the
court to para 3 of the said decision,
learned standing counsel has urged that
what is relevant is the conduct and
character of a candidate to be appointed
and not the actual result of the criminal
case. From a perusal of the aforesaid
decisions, referred to herein above, it can
be said that the petitioner was not fair in
his disclosure. On the contrary the
affidavit filed by the petitioner amounts to
tendering of a false information and
therefore, the petitioner was rightly non
suited for employment in the Police
services.

10. Accordingly the writ petition
fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition
dismissed.
---------