# Ram Sewak v. Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 52
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-01
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 557 of 2024
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Prashant Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-sewak-v-hon-ble-high-court-of-judicature-at-allahabad-52225
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A. Service Law - UP St. District Court
Service
Rules,
2013
-
Rule
15
-
Termination - Concealment of fact - Fact
regarding pendency of criminal case was
concealed
during
selection,
though
subsequently acquittal order was passed -
Effect - Plea of lack of knowledge was
taken, though notice u/s 41-A CrPC was
served
-
Permissibility
-
Held,
the
petitioner was having full knowledge
about the criminal case during document
verification and he has concealed the
material fact while swearing the affidavit
at the time of getting employment - The
candidate seeking an appointment in the
District Court judgeship should be of
7 All. Ram Sewak Vs. Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
53
impeccable character and high integrity -
The employer has the right to consider
antecedents and cannot be compelled to
appoint the candidate. (Para 16, 18 and
23)

Special Appeal dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

52 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
delayed claims can put a heavy financial
strain on the employer, particularly in cases
where the employee knew the facts but
chose not to pursue the issue promptly.
Acknowledging such claims could have
unfair financial repercussions for the
corporation, which is unjust considering the
conscious and sustained inaction of the
respondent-petitioner.

22. The learned Single Judge had
granted one month additional salary as
honorarium from the financial year 20102011 until the financial year till he retired
along with interest of 6%. We find
conversely, if the present claim is accepted
in such eventuality, the Corporation may
not consider even a genuine medical
condition of employee and assign them
lighter work on the their request on
humanitarian ground, if it will be saddled
to pay the honorarium as directed by
learned Single Judge.

23. The appellant Corporation
cannot be saddled with such a cost just
because nomenclature of the driver was not
change in the record. If the impugned order
passed in Writ -A No. 19152 of 2021 (Israr
Ali vs. State of U.P. and others) is not set
aside, it will create a wrong precedent, as
people will opt for comfortable job and after
the retirement would seek honorarium, which
is only available to the driver, who were
supposed to be working for long hours and in
the longer run it will create a huge financial
impact for the corporation. Petitioner's
protracted inaction and the potential financial
and administrative costs on the Corporation is
supported by the ratio laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
aforementioned
judgements cited above, this Court finds that
the petitioner's claim for the honorarium is
not justified.

24. In view of the observation made
above, the judgement passed by the learned
Single Judge dated 15.02.2024 is not
sustainable and is accordingly set aside.

25. The instant Special Appeal is
accordingly allowed.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 52
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Special Appeal No. 557 of 2024

Ram Sewak ...Appellant
Versus
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Puneet Bhadauria

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ashish Mishra, C.S.C.

A. Service Law - UP St. District Court
Service
Rules,
2013
-
Rule
15
-
Termination - Concealment of fact - Fact
regarding pendency of criminal case was
concealed
during
selection,
though
subsequently acquittal order was passed -
Effect - Plea of lack of knowledge was
taken, though notice u/s 41-A CrPC was
served
-
Permissibility
-
Held,
the
petitioner was having full knowledge
about the criminal case during document
verification and he has concealed the
material fact while swearing the affidavit
at the time of getting employment - The
candidate seeking an appointment in the
District Court judgeship should be of
7 All. Ram Sewak Vs. Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
53
impeccable character and high integrity -
The employer has the right to consider
antecedents and cannot be compelled to
appoint the candidate. (Para 16, 18 and
23)

Special Appeal dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Avtar Singh Vs U.O.I.; 2016) 8 SCC 471

2. Pawan Kumar Vs U.O.I.; (2022) Supreme
(SC) 391

3. Nikhilesh Kumar Gautam Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2024 (6) ADJ 8 (DB)

4. Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla Vs St. of J. & K.; 2023
AIR (SC) 1308

5. Commissioner of Police Vs Mehar Singh;
2013(7) SCC 685

6. St. of M.P. Vs Parvez Khan; 2015 (2) SCC 591

7. U.O.I. Vs Methu Meda; 2022 (1) SCC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra
Tripathi, J.
&
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Puneet Bhadauria,
learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant
and Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned
Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant appeal under
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952 is directed against the
judgment and order dated 22.04.2024
passed in Writ A No.4727 of 2024 (Ram
Sewak vs. Hon'ble High Court Judicature at
Allahabad and 2 others) whereby learned
Single Judge has proceeded to dismiss the
writ petition at the admission stage. For
ready reference, the said judgment is
reproduced as under:-

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari,
learned counsel appearing for the High
Court.
 Present writ petition has been
filed against the order 28.7.2023 passed by
the respondent no.3 by which the services
of the petitioner has been terminated.

Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits
that
in
pursuance
of
the
advertisement dated 27.10.2022 issued by
the High Court recruitment cell in the year
2020-23 the petitioner applied for the post
of Group "D" on 15.12.2022. After
completing
the
selection
process
appointment letter no. 1245 dated 1.6.2023
was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter the
petitioner joined his duties at District
Court, Etah on 24.5.2023. The petitioner
has submitted an affidavit wherein it has
been
specifically
mentioned
that
no
criminal proceeding is pending against
him. During the police verification it has
been found that Case Crime No. 392/2022
under section 232, 452, 504, 506, of IPC is
pending against the petitioner. He further
submits that the petitioner was not aware
about the pendency of the aforesaid
criminal proceedings before applying for
the said post. He prays for allowing the
writ petition on the ground that he was not
aware about the criminal case being
pending against him.
 Per
contra,
learned
counsel
appearing for the High Court submits that
the petitioner has full knowledge about
criminal case and concealed the same
while filing the affidavit. He further submits
that it has specifically been mentioned in
paragraph no. 7 and 8 of the affidavit that
no criminal case is pending against him.
He further submits that since the criminal
case is pending against the petitioner the
impugned order has rightly been passed
and the writ petition may be dismissed.
54 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

After hearing the learned counsel
for the parties and going through the
materials on record, the Court finds that
since the criminal case was pending
against the petitioner and in the affidavit
the petitioner has concealed the same, no
relief can be granted to the petitioner. No
interference is called for in the impugned
order dated 28.7.2023.

The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed."

3. The brief facts of the case culled
out from the record are that in pursuance of
the advertisement No.02/Sub Court/Group
'D'/2022 dated 27.10.2022 issued by the
High Court Recruitment Cell in the year
2020-23 the petitioner applied online for
Group "D" post on 15.12.2022, which was
completed successfully. After submitting
the online form the petitioner entered in the
examination as required by the Recruitment
Cell Committee and has been selected for
the said post. Consequently, the Chairman,
Administrative Committee, District Court
Etah had issued information letter no.131
dated
20.05.2023
regarding
the
appointment.
Thereafter,
vide
letter
no.1245 dated 01.06.2023, the respondent
no.3 i.e. District Judge, Etah had issued
appointment letter to the petitioner. In
response thereof, the petitioner joined the
Group 'D' post at District Court, Etah and
started discharging his duties.

4. It further transpires from the
record
that
as
per
para-6
of
the
directions/instructions of the High Court,
an undertaking on affidavit was required to
be furnished by the selected candidate
declaring
that
neither
any
criminal
case/proceeding is pending against him/her
nor he/she has been convicted by any
criminal court. Further, if such information
is not furnished at the time of joining, the
candidature/ appointment of such candidate
shall be forfeited/ cancelled by the
appointing authority. In the present matter,
the petitioner had submitted an undertaking
on
affidavit,
wherein
it
has
been
specifically mentioned that no criminal
case is pending against him. Later on,
during police verification, it had surfaced
that Case Crime No.392/2022 under
Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC has been
registered
against
the
petitioner
on
14.12.2022 at Police Station Linepar,
District Firozabad. In the said proceeding,
after investigation, the Investigating Officer
had submitted chargesheet/ police report
against the petitioner on 08.01.2023 on
which the concerned Magistrate had also
taken cognizance on 18.7.2023. Thereafter,
case was registered as Criminal Case
No.25068 of 2022 (State vs. Anuj @
Ramsevak and others), wherein the trial
court had commenced the proceeding
against the petitioner and other co-accused.
Finally
in
the
said
proceeding,
the
petitioner had been acquitted on 25.9.2023.

5.

Once
during
the
police
verification it was disclosed that the
aforesaid Case Crime No.392 of 2022 was
registered
against
the
petitioner,
the
respondent no.3 had issued a show cause
notice to the petitioner on 14.07.2023, which
was
responded
by
the
petitioner
on
19.07.2023. Finally, by the order dated
28.07.2023 the District Judge, Etah had
dispensed with the services of the petitioner,
which is impugned in the writ petition.
Learned
Single
Judge
vide
impugned
judgement and order dated 22.04.2024 had
considered the grounds of challenge in the
writ petition and proceeded to dismiss the
writ petition with aforequoted judgment.

6. Learned counsel for the
petitioner-appellant
has
vehemently
7 All. Ram Sewak Vs. Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
55
submitted that learned Single Judge has
erred in law while dismissing the writ
petition and failed to consider the relevant
aspect of the matter that at the time of
filling up the form no criminal case was
registered against the petitioner. Even the
petitioner was having no knowledge of
criminal case at the time of swearing of
affidavit for appointment. Therefore, the
allegation of concealment of information in
the declaration form is baseless. Even in
the criminal proceeding, later on, he was
acquitted. He submits that the seriousness
of the allegations levelled against the
petitioner-appellant
as
well
as
his
suitability for his engagement ought to
have been examined by the Appointing
Authority in view of law laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh v.
Union of India1. He has also placed
reliance on the judgment passed by the
Apex Court in Pawan Kumar v. Union of
India2 and the judgment passed by this
Court in Nikhilesh Kumar Gautam vs.
State of UP and other3.

7. Per contra, Sri Ansari, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents has vehemently opposed the
appeal and submitted that it is not a case,
where the petitioner had concealed the
pendency of criminal case at the time of
filling up the form. He submitted that at the
time of appointment an affidavit was required
to be submitted in view of the direction of the
High Court as contained in information
regarding appointment dated 20.05.2023,
wherein, it was specifically required to
disclose as to whether any criminal case is
registered against him and as to whether he
has even been tried in a criminal proceeding
or any criminal proceeding is pending against
him, or whether he has been convicted or
acquitted by any court. If the answer was
'Yes' then details of the case were required to
be given. The information also contained the
specific stipulation in the form of undertaking
that if any of the above facts have been
concealed, then the appointment of the
applicant be cancelled.

8. Sri Ansari assertively submitted
that the affidavit of the petitioner has been
admittedly prepared and sworn on 24.5.2023
and much prior to it i.e. on 8.1.2023, in the
said criminal case, chargesheet was already
submitted to the competent court and even
cognizance was also taken by the trial court.

9.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents has further raised objection that
as alleged offences are punishable below
seven years, hence during the investigation,
notice under Section 41-A CrPC was also
served upon the petitioner, which he had
received. He had not only made endorsement
on the said notice but also mentioned his
phone number on it. It is submitted that the
petitioner had unequivocally declared on oath
that no criminal case was pending against
him, therefore, present case relates to
concealment of fact. The quantum of
punishment or acquittal would have no
bearing in the present case. He submitted that
the notarised affidavit is crucial part of the
verification and in case any false information
is furnished, the same requires no leniency
and the candidature has been rightly
rejected. He submitted that the competent
authority had accorded opportunity to the
petitioner and later on dispensed his
services on account of concealment of
material fact at the time of furnishing the
notarised affidavit in view of the High
Court's direction.

10. Learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that the judgment
heavily relied by learned counsel for the
appellant in Nikhilesh Kumar Gautam
56 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(supra) is distinguishable in the present
matter as in the said case, admittedly a
closure
report
was
submitted
before
swearing the affidavit, whereas in the
present matter, the petitioner-appellant had
duly endorsed on the notice under Section
41-A CrPC, much prior to swearing of
affidavit and even chargesheet was also
submitted to the competent court in which
the trial court has also taken cognizance.
Therefore, it cannot be accepted that at the
time of swearing of affidavit, the petitioner
had no knowledge regarding ongoing
criminal proceeding. In support of his
submissions, he has placed reliance on Rule
13 (2) of Uttar Pradesh State District Court
Service Rules, 2013 (in short "Rules,
2013"), which provides that the inclusion of
the name of a candidate in any list
published under Rule 12 shall not confer
any right of appointment. He has also
placed reliance on the judgment passed by
the Apex Court in Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla
v. State of Jammu and Kashmir4.

11. Heard rival submissions,
perused
the
record
and
respectfully
considered the judgments cited at Bar.

12. The facts as emanates from the
record are that under the advertisement
dated 27.10.2022 the petitioner submitted
an application on 15.12.2022 for being
considered for appointment on Class-IV
post in the District Judgeship. In the
examination, he was declared successful
and called for document verification. The
petitioner was also required to furnish an
affidavit disclosing whether any FIR has
been lodged or criminal case is pending
against him or not. It is apt to have a glance
on the letter dated 20.5.2023, which for
ready reference, is reproduced as under:-

"कार्ाालर्ः अध्र्क्ष, प्रशासनिक सनिनि, जिपद न्र्ार्ालर्, एटा
पत्ाांकः 131/केंद्रीर् िानजर/2023, एटा नदिाांनकिः 20/5/23
निर्ुनि के सांबांध िें सूचिा

श्री रािसेवक पुत् श्री उदल नसांह

ग्राि-गुांदाउ थािा-लाइिपार,

नजला-निरोजाबाद (उ०प्र०)

िाििीर् उच्च न्र्ार्ालर् इलाहाबाद के पत्ाांक सांख्र्ा
1334/2023 Recruitment Cell/High Court
dated 16.05.2023 के सांबांध िें आपको सूनचि नकर्ा जािा
है नक आपका चर्ि "The Uttar Pradesh Civil
Court Staff Centralized Recruitment 202223 के अन्िगाि सिूह "घ" कैडर पोस्ट (पोस्ट कोड-04) के पद
पर िाििीर् उच्च न्र्ार्ालर् की ररक्रूटिेंट सनिनि द्वारा नकर्ा गर्ा
है, उसके आधार पर आपकी निर्ुनि आवांनटि जिपद न्र्ार्ालर्
एटा िें होिी नजसकी सूचिा आपके रनजस्रेशि िािा िें दी गई ई-
िेल, िोबाइल िम्बर व स्पीड पोस्ट द्वारा भेजी जा रही है, आप
निम्िनलनिि दस्िावेजों के साथ नदिाांक 25.05.2023 को सिर्
प्रािः 09:30 बजे केन्द्रीर् िजारि जिपद न्र्ार्ालर्, एटा के
कार्ाालर् िें उपनस्थि हों।

1. िूल अनभलेिों के साथ उि अनभलेिों की कि
से कि 3-3 छार्ाप्रनिर्ाां जो स्विः प्रिानिि हो।

2. 05 अद्यिि पासपोटा आकार के िोटो।

3. िीि नलिािे कि से कि 42/-रुपर्े की पोस्टेज
नटकट लगे स्पीड पोस्ट।

4. उ०प्र० नजला न्र्ार्ालर् सेवा निर्िावली
2013 के अिुपालि िें "अपिे अनन्िि नशक्षि सांस्था से निगाि
नकर्ा गर्ा चररत् प्रिाि पत्

5. दो सम्िानिि व्र्निर्ों (राजपनत्ि अनधकारी)
(जो अभ्र्थी से सम्बनन्धि ि हों) द्वारा निगाि चररत् प्रिाि पत् जो
06 िाह से अनधक के ि हों,

6. अभ्र्थी का निवास प्रिाि पत् व जानि प्रिाि
पत्।

7. अभ्र्थी स्वर्ां का इस आशर् का शपथपत् भी
प्रस्िुि करें नक

1. िैं भारि का िागररक ह ूँ।

2. िैं अनववानहि/नववानहि ह ूँ िथा िेरी एक ही
जीनवि पनि/पत्िी हैं

3. िैं नकसी भी असांवैधानिक सांस्था से िहीं जुडा ह ूँ।

4. िेरा भारि की सांप्रभुिा और अिांडिा र्ा राज्र्
की सुरक्षा के नवपरीि नहि िहीं है।
7 All. Ram Sewak Vs. Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
57

5. िैं भारि सरकार, उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार एवां िाििीर्
उच्च न्र्ार्ालर् के अधीि नकसी सेवा से निष्कानसि िहीं नकर्ा गर्ा
ह ूँ।

6. िैं पनललक सनवास किीशि से प्रनिबांनधि िहीं
नकर्ा गर्ा ह ूँ।

7. क्या कोई आपराधिक प्रकरण आपके धिरूद्ध
पंजीकृत है?

8. क्या आपके धिरूद्ध कोई आपराधिक
धिचारण हुआ है, लधबित है अथिा न्यायालय द्वारा दोषमुक्त
हुए या दोषधिद्ध हुए हैं, उत्तर हााँ है तो उिका धिस्तृत धििरण
प्रस्तुत करें।

9. यधद उपयुुक्त तथ्यों में कोई भी तथ्य छुपाया
गया है तो प्राथी की धियुधक्त धिरस्त कर दी जाए।

10. कभी भी पीठासीि अनधकारी द्वारा अपिे कैम्प
कार्ाालर् पर बुलार्े जािे पर वह उपनस्थि रहेगा िथा नकसी भी
पीठासीि अनधकारी के आदेश की अवहेलिा िहीं करेगा।"

13. We have also occasion to
peruse para 7, 8, and 9 of the aforesaid
communication. Admittedly, in response to
the said communication, the petitioner had
prepared an affidavit, which was sworn on
24.5.2023, wherein he has made categorical
averment that there is no criminal case
registered
or
pending
against
him.
Thereafter, the petitioner joined his duties
at District Court, Etah on 24.05.2023.
During the police verification, it was found
that Case Crime No.392/2022 under
Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC was
registered
against
the
petitioner
on
14.12.2022 at Police Station Linepar,
District Firozabad, wherein the chargesheet
was also forwarded to the competent court
on 08.01.2023 and cognizance was also
taken by the criminal court. During the
investigation, notice under Section 41-A
CrPC was also served upon the petitioner,
which was duly endorsed by the petitioner
himself on 8.1.2023.

14. Once during the police
verification it was disclosed that the
aforesaid Case Crime No.392 of 2022 was
registered
against
the
petitioner,
the
respondent no.3 had issued a show cause
notice to the petitioner on 14.07.2023,
which was responded by the petitioner on
19.07.2023. For ready reference the notice
dated 14.7.2023 is reproduced herein
below:-

 "आपको इस आशर् की िोनटस दी जािी है नक
आपके द्वारा आवेदि करिे सिर् उसिें नदर्े गर्े कॉलि
'Whether any criminal complaint case have
ever been registered against you?' िें 'No'
अांनकि नकर्ा गर्ा था िथा अनभलेि सत्र्ापि के सिर् प्रस्िुि
शपथपत् नदिाांनकि 24.05.2023 िें कॉलि सां० 08 िें नकसी
न्र्ार्ालर् िें कोई आपरानधक नवचारि लांनबि ि होिा, नकसी
न्र्ार्ालर् द्वारा दोष नसद्ध ि नकर्ा जािा और पूवा िें नकसी
न्र्ार्ालर् िें कोई आपरानधक िुकदिा नवचारधीि ि रहिा भी
दशाार्ा गर्ा है जबनक पुनलस सत्र्ापि के बाद ररपोटा जिपद
न्र्ार्ालर् एटा िें प्राप्त हुई है नजसिें आपके नवरुद्ध थािा लाईिपार
नजला निरोजाबाद िें अपराध सांख्र्ा 392/2022 धारा
323/452/504/506 IPC राज्र् बिाि् अिुज उिा रािसेवक
आनद पांजीकृि है नजसिें वाद नववेचिा आरोप पत् सांख्र्ा
04/2023 नदिाांक 08.01.2023 को िाििीर् न्र्ार्ालर् िें
प्रेनषि नकर्ा जा चुका है। ऐसा प्रिीि होिा है नक र्ह कृत्र् आपके
द्वारा जािबूझकर नछपार्ा गर्ा है। अिः आप इस सम्बन्ध िें अपिा
स्पष्टीकरि नदिाांक 15.07.2023 िक इस आशर् का प्रस्िुि
करिा सुनिनिि करें नक क्र्ों ि आपकी निर्ुनि निरस्ि/रद्द कर दी
जार्े।"

15. Finally, by the order dated
28.07.2023 the District Judge, Etah had
dispensed
with
the
services
of
the
petitioner, which was challenged in the writ
petition.
Learned
Single
Judge
vide
impugned judgement and order dated
22.04.2024 had proceeded to dismiss the
writ petition with aforequoted judgment.

16. In view of the aforesaid factual
situation, it is apparent that the petitioner
was having full knowledge about the
criminal case during document verification
58 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and he has concealed the material fact
while swearing the affidavit at the time of
getting employment. Later on at the time of
document verification and at the time of
verifying his criminal antecedents, it was
found that criminal case was pending
against him and the same had been
concealed. The verification of character
and antecedents of an employee are to be
ensured by the employer. The character and
integrity of a candidate, who is seeking
appointment in the District Judgeship must
be impeccable and his/ her antecedents
should be clean. If a person, whose
integrity
is
doubtful,
and
his/
her
antecedents are not clean, he cannot claim
appointment as the same may adversely
affect the institution. Moreover, it is well
settled that even the acquittal in a criminal
case does not automatically entitle the
applicant for appointment to the post. Still,
it is open to the employer to consider the
antecedents and examine whether he is
suitable for appointment to the post.
Whereas in the present matter, the dispute
relates to furnishing false information at the
time of appointment. In a case of deliberate
suppression of fact with respect to pending
criminal case, such false information by
itself will assume significance and an
employer may pass appropriate order
cancelling the candidature. If the criminal
case was pending and known to the
candidate at the time of filling up the form
or swearing the affidavit, the concealing of
the same may have adverse impact in the
organisation.

17. Rule 15 of U.P. State District
Court Service Rules, 2013 deals with
conditions relating to suitability and
certificates of characters. According to this
Rule, no person shall be appointed unless
the appointing authority is satisfied that
he is of good character and is in all
respect suitable for appointment to the
service. Every candidate selected for direct
recruitment shall furnish to the appointing
authority certificates not more than six
months prior to the date of selection, by
two respectable persons unconnected with
his school, college or university, and not
related to him, testifying to his character, in
addition to the certificate or certificates
which may be required to be furnished
from the education institution last attended
by the candidate. If any doubt arises
regarding the suitability of a candidate
for appointment the decision of the High
Court shall be final.

18. At this point, it is pertinent to
mention that a candidate seeking an
appointment in the District Court judgeship
should be of impeccable character and high
integrity, and his antecedents should be
clean and if a person whose integrity is
doubtful or his antecedents are not clean is
appointed, that can damage the institution
inasmuch as if the Court records are
misplaced or tampered which would cause
immense prejudice to the litigants and also
shake the confidence of the public in the
judicial system which would eventually
result in serious damage to the prestige of
the institution.

19. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
matter of Commissioner of Police vs.
Mehar Singh5, has observed as under :

"18. The question before this
Court is whether the candidature of the
respondents who had made a clean breast
of their involvement in a criminal case by
mentioning
this
fact
in
their
application/attestation form while applying
for a post of constable in Delhi Police; who
were provisionally selected subject to
verification of their antecedents and who
7 All. Ram Sewak Vs. Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
59
were subsequently acquitted/discharged in
the criminal case, could be cancelled by the
Screening Committee of the Delhi Police
on the ground that they are not found
suitable for appointment to the post of
constable.
 23. A careful perusal of the policy
leads us to conclude that the Screening
Committee would be entitled to keep
persons involved in grave cases of moral
turpitude out of the police force even if they
are acquitted or discharged if it feels that
the acquittal or discharge is on technical
grounds or not honourable. The Screening
Committee will be within its rights to
cancel the candidature of a candidate if it
finds that the acquittal is based on some
serious flaw in the conduct of the
prosecution case or is the result of material
witnesses turning hostile. It is only
experienced officers of the Screening
Committee who will be able to judge
whether the acquitted or discharged
candidate is likely to revert to similar
activities in future with more strength and
vigour, if appointed, to the post in a police
force. The Screening Committee will have
to consider the nature and extent of such
person's involvement in the crime and his
propensity of becoming a cause for
worsening the law and order situation
rather than maintaining it. In our opinion,
this policy framed by the Delhi Police does
not merit any interference from this Court
as its object appears to be to ensure that
only persons with impeccable character
enter the police force.

26. In light of above, we are of
the opinion that since the purpose of
departmental proceedings is to keep
persons,who
are
guilty
of
serious
misconduct or dereliction of duty or who
are guilty of grave cases of moral
turpitude, out of the department, if found
necessary,
because
they
pollute
the
department, surely the above principles
will apply with more vigour at the point of
entry of a person in the police department
i.e. at the time of recruitment. If it is found
by the Screening Committee that the person
against whom a serious case involving
moral turpitude is registered is discharged
on technical grounds or is acquitted of the
same charge but the acquittal is not
honourable,
the
Screening
Committee
would be entitled to cancel his candidature.
Stricter norms need to be applied while
appointing persons in a disciplinary force
because public interest is involved in it."

20. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
matter of State of M.P. vs. Parvez Khan6,
has held as follows:

 "13. From the above observations
of this Court, it is clear that a candidate to
be recruited to the police service must be
worthy of Civil Appeal No. of 2014 @ SLP
(C) No.36237 of 2012 confidence and must
be a person of utmost rectitude and must
have impeccable character and integrity. A
person having criminal antecedents will not
fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted
or discharged, it cannot be presumed that
he was completely exonerated. Persons
who are likely to erode the credibility of the
police ought not to enter the police force.
No doubt the Screening Committee has not
been constituted in the case considered by
this Court, as rightly pointed out by
learned counsel for the Respondent, in the
present case, the Superintendent of Police
has
gone
into
the
matter.
The
Superintendent of Police is the appointing
authority. There is no allegation of mala
fides against the person taking the said
decision nor the decision is shown to be
perverse or irrational. There is no material
to show that the appellant was falsely
implicated. Basis of impugned judgment is
60 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
acquittal for want of evidence or discharge
based on compounding."

21. The law with regard to the
effect and consequence of the acquittal,
concealment
of
criminal
case
on
appointments etc. has been settled in the
case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and
others (supra), wherein a three Judges'
Bench of the Apex Court decided, as thus:

 "38. We have noticed various
decisions and tried to explain and reconcile
them as far as possible. In view of the
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
3 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 4 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
7 All. Ram Sewak Vs. Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
61
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."

22. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Imtiyaz Ahamad Malla (supra) has
considered the import of Avtar Singh's
case and held as under :

"13. As regards the suppression
of relevant information or false information
with regard to the criminal prosecution,
arrest or pendency of criminal case against
the candidate, a three-judge Bench of this
Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India
and Others has laid down the precise
guidelines. Para 38.5 thereof reads as
under:

"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."
 14. In all the above cases, the
requirement of integrity and high standard
of conduct in police force has been highly
emphasised. The High Court in the
impugned judgement has also elaborately
dealt with each and every aspect of the
issues involved, while upholding the order
of the Single Bench to the effect that the
Director
General
being
the
highest
functionary in the police hierarchy, was the
best judge to consider the suitability of the
petitioner for induction into the police
force. The impugned order being just and
proper, we are not inclined to interfere
with the same in exercise of our jurisdiction
under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India."

23. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Union of India vs. Methu Meda7,
while considering the Avtar Singh's case,
has held that even in case truthful
declaration regarding concluded trial has
been made by the employee, still the
employer
has
the
right
to
consider
antecedents and cannot be compelled to
appoint the candidate. Paras 18 of the
aforesaid judgment is being quoted below:

"18. In view of the above, in the
facts of the present case, as per paras 38.3,
38.4.3 and 38.5, it is clear that the
employer is having right to consider the
suitability
of
the
candidate
as
per
government orders/instructions/rules at the
time of taking the decision for induction of
the candidate in employment. Acquittal on
technical ground in respect of the offences
of heinous/serious nature, which is not a
clean acquittal, the employer may have a
right
to
consider
all
relevant
facts
available as to the antecedents, and may
take appropriate decision as to the
62 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
continuance of the employee. Even in case,
truthful declaration regarding concluded
trial has been made by the employee, still
the employer has the right to consider
antecedents and cannot be compelled to
appoint the candidate.

24. After considering the Mehar
Singh (supra), the Apex Court in Methu
Meda (supra) has held as under:-

 22. As discussed hereinabove, the
law is well settled. If a person is acquitted
giving him the benefit of doubt, from the
charge of an offence involving moral
turpitude or because the witnesses turned
hostile, it would not automatically entitle
him for the employment, that too in
disciplined force. The employer is having a
right to consider his candidature in terms
of the circulars issued by the Screening
Committee. The mere disclosure of the
offences alleged and the result of the trial
is not sufficient......."

25. In all the above cases, the
requirement of integrity and high standard
of conduct has been highly emphasized.
We find that learned Single Judge in the
impugned judgement has also elaborately
dealt with each and every aspect of the
issues involved, while affirming the order
dated 28.7.2023 passed by the respondent
no.3 by which the services of the petitioner
have been terminated. The impugned order
being just and proper, we are not inclined
to interfere with impugned order.

26. In an Intra-Court Special
Appeal,
no
interference
is
usually
warranted unless palpable infirmities or
perversities are noticed on a plain reading
of the impugned judgment and order. In the
facts and circumstances of the instant case,
on a plain reading of the impugned
judgment and order, we do not notice any
such palpable infirmity or perversity. As
such, we are not inclined to interfere with
the impugned judgment and order.

27. The appeal fails, and is,
accordingly, dismissed with no order as to
the costs.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 62
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ A No. 1644 of 2024

Arvind Kumar Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ajay Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Raj
Kumar
Upadhyaya
(R.K.
Upadhyaya)

A. Service Law - UP Government Service
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 -
Rules 7 & 9 - Disciplinary proceeding -
Punishment
of
withholding
two
increments permanently and award of
censure entry - Charge against petitioner
was that he, while acting as DIOS
cancelled the stopped order and thereby
permitted an Assistant teacher to be paid
salary - No date, time and place was fixed
and no opportunity of personal hearing
was given - Copy of the enquiry report
was also not served upon the petitioner -
Effect - Held, it is always incumbent upon
the enquiry officer to fix a date, time and
place
for
personal
hearing
to
the
delinquent employee and in case of
violation, the enquiry proceeding shall