# Ram Sundar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 107
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-08
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 7119 of 2023
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-sundar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53090
- **Pages:** 22

## Headnote

Law
-
Police
Constable
Recruitment - Suppression of criminal
antecedents - False affidavit - Scope of
judicial review - Applicability of Avtar
Singh principles - Clean acquittal -
Trivial case - Ghost Goondas Act case -
Failure to apply mind- Suppression of
criminal case must be viewed in light of
circumstances,
acquittal
nature,
and
severity - Goondas Act proceedings are
not criminal cases - Employment cannot
be
denied
mechanically
without
meaningful inquiry - Non-application of
mind renders cancellation order arbitrary
and unsustainable. (Paras 15 to 27, 32 to
36)
 Petition allowed. (E-14)

HELD:
The principles laid down in Avtar Singh do not
universally and without exception forbid the
consideration of a person's candidature, guilty of
suppression or furnishing false information of
involvement in a criminal case, at the time he
makes his application for employment or at the
time of verification of his character, post
selection. (Para 17)

The general rule is that there should be no
suppression of information by the candidate as
to conviction, acquittal, arrest or the pendency
of a criminal case, whether before or after
entering
service.
But,
if
information
is
suppressed about the involvement in a criminal
case, what would be the impact thereof upon
the candidature of a person, or so to speak, his
right to appointment. It would depend on a
variety of factors. The principles, that are
summed up in paragraph No.38 of the report in
Avtar Singh, are backed by elaborate reasons,
which broadly frown upon suppression or
furnishing of false information of involvement in
a criminal case by a candidate, but does not
make it an indefeasible ground, leading to
rejection of candidature in all cases. No doubt,
the principle in paragraph No.38.4 applies to a
case, where suppression or false information of
involvement in a criminal case is given, where a
conviction or acquittal has already happened,
but it is not a mathematical formula where
pending judgment, the same principles cannot
be rationally extended. It is a well regarded
principle that a judgment is to be understood for
108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the principle that it lays down and never read
like a statute. The principles in Avtar Singh give
ample play for the exercise of discretion in the
matter to the Appointing Authority. It makes
provision for taking notice of the special
circumstances of a case by the employer before
passing an order of termination of service or
cancellation of candidature for giving false
information about the criminal case. This
contingency is contemplated even in cases
where judgment has not been delivered. (Para
18)

Peeping behind all these principles, one cannot
miss the fact that in case of suppressed
information about the pendency of a criminal
case, where a judgment had already been
passed, whether of acquittal or conviction, or
may be in a case where it is shortly afterwards
passed, the first thing to be seen

## Text

_Characters 0–38,492 of 76,730. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=38492 for what follows._

4 All. Ram Sundar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors
107
11. The impugned orders dated
18.10.2024 and 06.12.2024 neglect to
consider the aforesaid germane aspects
while invalidating the claim of the
petitioners. The impugned orders dated
18.10.2024 and 06.12.2024 are vitiated on
account of non application of mind to
relevant consideration.

12. In this wake, the impugned
letters dated 18.10.2024 and 06.12.2024 are
quashed.

13. The matter is remitted to the
respondents-authorities who shall decide
the claim of the petitioner after considering
all relevant factors including the financial
condition of the family of the deceased in
light of above observations and as per law
within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order.

14. The writ petition is allowed to
the extent indicated above.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 107
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 7119 of 2023

Ram Sundar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ram Krishna Yadav, Sri Jitendra Kumar
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Service
Law
-
Police
Constable
Recruitment - Suppression of criminal
antecedents - False affidavit - Scope of
judicial review - Applicability of Avtar
Singh principles - Clean acquittal -
Trivial case - Ghost Goondas Act case -
Failure to apply mind- Suppression of
criminal case must be viewed in light of
circumstances,
acquittal
nature,
and
severity - Goondas Act proceedings are
not criminal cases - Employment cannot
be
denied
mechanically
without
meaningful inquiry - Non-application of
mind renders cancellation order arbitrary
and unsustainable. (Paras 15 to 27, 32 to
36)
 Petition allowed. (E-14)

HELD:
The principles laid down in Avtar Singh do not
universally and without exception forbid the
consideration of a person's candidature, guilty of
suppression or furnishing false information of
involvement in a criminal case, at the time he
makes his application for employment or at the
time of verification of his character, post
selection. (Para 17)

The general rule is that there should be no
suppression of information by the candidate as
to conviction, acquittal, arrest or the pendency
of a criminal case, whether before or after
entering
service.
But,
if
information
is
suppressed about the involvement in a criminal
case, what would be the impact thereof upon
the candidature of a person, or so to speak, his
right to appointment. It would depend on a
variety of factors. The principles, that are
summed up in paragraph No.38 of the report in
Avtar Singh, are backed by elaborate reasons,
which broadly frown upon suppression or
furnishing of false information of involvement in
a criminal case by a candidate, but does not
make it an indefeasible ground, leading to
rejection of candidature in all cases. No doubt,
the principle in paragraph No.38.4 applies to a
case, where suppression or false information of
involvement in a criminal case is given, where a
conviction or acquittal has already happened,
but it is not a mathematical formula where
pending judgment, the same principles cannot
be rationally extended. It is a well regarded
principle that a judgment is to be understood for
108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the principle that it lays down and never read
like a statute. The principles in Avtar Singh give
ample play for the exercise of discretion in the
matter to the Appointing Authority. It makes
provision for taking notice of the special
circumstances of a case by the employer before
passing an order of termination of service or
cancellation of candidature for giving false
information about the criminal case. This
contingency is contemplated even in cases
where judgment has not been delivered. (Para
18)

Peeping behind all these principles, one cannot
miss the fact that in case of suppressed
information about the pendency of a criminal
case, where a judgment had already been
passed, whether of acquittal or conviction, or
may be in a case where it is shortly afterwards
passed, the first thing to be seen is if the
offence, that has been charged against the
employee, is of a petty nature or heinous. If it is
heinous, still the employer may consider
relevant facts as to antecedents of the employee
before arriving at a decision. (Para 20)

No doubt, the decisions in Sandeep Kumar and
Ram Kumar have in the foreground the later
decision in Avtar Singh, which has assimilated
and summarized principles, but there is no
departure or dissent from the rules adumbrated
in Sandeep Kumar and Ram Kumar. A careful
look at the record of this case would show that
in adherence to the procedure of seeking the
District Magistrate's opinion for suitability of the
petitioner's appointment, his case too was
referred to the District Magistrate. And, the
District Magistrate, upon a consideration of the
circumstances, appears to have favoured the
petitioner
for
appointment
in
government
service as a Police Constable. This fact is
evident upon a perusal of a memo, bearing No.
Bha-38/2017 dated April 18th, 2021, addressed
to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah
by the Superintendent of Police, Hathras....
(Para 39)

For all these fallacies, the impugned order has
to perish and the matter sent back to the
Superintendent of Police, Hathras for the
making of fresh orders in accordance with law
and the guidance in this judgment. We would
add that in judging the suitability of the
petitioner for appointment, the Superintendent
of Police, Hathras will bear in mind and look to
telltale circumstances regarding the crime, in
which the petitioner was implicated and now
acquitted, if it was a typical case of service
related implication by natives of the village, as
the petitioner had staked his candidature for
Police Service. One of the things that would
have to be seen and borne in mind by the
Superintendent
of
Police,
is
the
general
reputation of the petitioner in order to find out
whether he was a person with criminal
propensities or a man belonging to the main
stream of life. This we say particularly because
except for Case Crime No.564 of 2015, that was
registered about the time relating to his
recruitment, no criminal history of the petitioner
showing him as a wayward man, has surfaced
during a keen search of his background. (Para
45)

Petition allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:
1.Avtar Singh Vs U.O.I.& ors., (2016) 8 SCC 471

2.Special Appeal Defective No. 734 of 2016, St.
of U.P. & ors. Vs Vijay Kumar & ors., decided on
06.12.2016

3.Pawan Kumar Vs U.O.I. & anr., (2023) 12 SCC
317

4.Shivam Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2024 (11)
ADJ 749

5.Commissioner of Police & ors. Vs Sandeep
Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644

6.Ram Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (2011) 14
SCC 709

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an
order of the Superintendent of Police,
Hathras dated 19.03.2023, cancelling his
candidature for appointment as a Police
Constable, a post for which he was selected
after a recruitment held in accordance with
rules, pursuant to an advertisement issued
4 All. Ram Sundar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors
109
by the Police Recruitment and Promotion
Board, Lucknow. The petitioner has also
sought consequential reliefs.

2. The Chairman, Uttar Pradesh
Police Recruitment and Promotion Board,
Lucknow, published an advertisement for
recruitment of Police and PAC Constables
on their website, called PRPB-1 (82)/15.
The petitioner applied for the post of Police
and PAC Constable (Male) in the direct
recruitment of the year 2015, for which, he
says, he was eligible. It would be utterly
unnecessary to mention details of the
petitioner's candidature for those are not in
dispute or issue. The petitioner was
selected and his name appeared in the merit
list. He was issued a provisional admit card
to appear in the physical efficiency test,
scheduled to be held on 05.05.2016. He
appeared in the physical efficiency test and
declared successful. The petitioner was
then called for character verification,
medical examination and the verification of
his Classes X and XII mark-sheets. He was
directed to appear for the purpose on
14.06.2018 at the Police Lines, Etawah in
the morning hours at 8 O' clock. The
petitioner's
candidature
was
accepted
during the said verification and medical
test. The selection being complete, the
petitioner,
along
with
other
selected
candidates, was allotted his district of
posting. The petitioner was allotted District
Hathras for his posting. Despite being
allotted a district, the petitioner was not
issued with an appointment letter. When
the petitioner approached the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Etawah, he was
informed that his appointment had been
withheld due to a criminal case pending
against him, to wit, Case Crime No.564 of
2015, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504,
506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for
short, 'the SC/ST Act'), Police Station
Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah.

3. It is the petitioner's case that not
only was he falsely implicated in the crime,
but it was not within his knowledge that the
case was pending against him. He was
never arrested or summoned by the Police
in connection with the crime, that was
based on an incident dated 17.12.2015. The
petitioner was served with a notice by the
Police to appear in Court for the first time
on 16.03.2016. This notice was issued by
the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-II, Etawah and required his
presence on 17.03.2016 at 10.30 a.m. at the
time of submission of the charge-sheet. The
petitioner was tried vide Sessions Trial
No.236
of
2016
and
acquitted
on
17.07.2018.
After
his
acquittal,
the
petitioner submitted an application dated
25.07.2018 to the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Etawah, bringing the fact to the
S.S.P.'s knowledge that he had been
acquitted after trial. When the petitioner
was not called or a letter of appointment
issued, he instituted Writ-A No.17523 of
2018 before this Court, seeking to enforce
his right to appointment on the basis of
selection to the post of a Constable.

4. This Court disposed of the said
writ petition vide order dated 18.08.2018
with a direction that the petitioner shall be
at liberty to annex all materials in support
of his claim and represent his grievance to
the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Etawah, who will examine the claim in
accordance with law, keeping in view the
law laid down by the Supreme Court in
Avtar Singhv. Union of Indian and
others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 and followed in
the Bench decision of this Court in Special
Appeal Defective No. 734 of 2016, State of
110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
U.P. and others v. Vijay Kumar and
others,
decided
on
06.12.2016.
The
petitioner submitted a representation dated
04.09.2018 along with a certified copy of
the order dated 18.08.2018 passed by this
Court in Writ-A No.17523 of 2018 vide
registered post, but this Court's order was
not complied with. This compelled the
petitioner to institute Contempt Application
(Civil) No.2070 of 2020, Ram Sundar v.
Dr. Raj Kumar Vishwakarma, U.P. Police
Recruitment and Promotion Board and
another, where vide order dated 23.06.2020
notice was issued to the contemnors to
show cause why contempt proceedings be
not initiated against them.

5. It is the petitioner's case that
when the petitioner was directed to submit
his affidavit regarding verification of his
character etc., the petitioner sought advice
of his learned Counsel in Court, where he
had been arraigned and the learned Counsel
informed the petitioner that as he had been
acquitted, no criminal case was pending
against him. It is the petitioner's case that
the learned Counsel, representing him in
the criminal case, dictated the affidavit for
being
filed
before
the
Senior
Superintendent of Police, Etawah. A copy
of the affidavit dated 09.06.2018 is placed
on record of the writ petition.

6. Upon receipt of notice of
contempt issued by this Court, the
petitioner's candidature was cancelled by
the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Etawah by the order dated 25.02.2021. The
order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah
was questioned by the petitioner before this
Court vide Writ-A No.4831 of 2021.
During the course of hearing of the
aforesaid
writ
petition,
the
Senior
Superintendent of Police, Etawah was
directed to appear in person on 24.03.2021
before this Court. The S.S.P., Etawah,
vide order dated 22.03.2021, proceeded
to withdraw the order dated 25.02.2021,
cancelling the petitioner's selection.

7. In consequence, this Court
disposed of Writ-A No.4831 of 2021
vide order dated 24.03.2021, noting that
the order impugned in that petition had
been withdrawn and that the petitioner's
case ought be considered in accordance
with the principles laid down by the
Supreme Court in Avtar Singh(supra)
vide paragraph Nos.38.5 and 38.6,
which cast an obligation upon the
Appointing Authority to consider the
suitability
of
the
candidate
for
induction in service, notwithstanding
his arraignment in a criminal case,
especially in view of the fact of his
acquittal. This Court clarified that it
was for the Appointing Authority to
judge the petitioner's suitability by an
independent evaluation and the Court
had not expressed any opinion on the
merits. The order dated 24.03.2021
passed by this Court was presented by
the petitioner along with an application
dated 27.03.2021 to the Superintendent
of Police, Hathras by registered post.
The Superintendent of Police, Hathras,
according to the petitioner, by an order
dated 02.06.2021, proceeded to reject
the
petitioner's
claim
without
application
of
mind
and
without
complying with the directions and
remarks of this Court carried in the
order dated 24.03.2021 passed in WritA No.4831 of 2021.

8. The petitioner, faced with a
rejection of his candidature again,
instituted Writ-A No.6576 of 2021
before this Court, which was heard and
4 All. Ram Sundar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors
111
allowed vide judgment and order dated
19.12.2022, in terms of the following order:

 "The contention of the Counsel
for the petition is that mere suppression of
the fact would not disqualify the petitioner
from service as has been law laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Pawan Kumar vs Union of India; 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 441 and the respondents are
bound to consider the relevant facts
including the effect of suppression on the
services as sought by the incumbent, as
such, the order impugned in view of the law
laid down in the case of Pawan Kumar
(Supra), I do not find that the order
impugned is unsustainable.
 Accordingly, the order impugned
dated
02.06.2021
is
set
aside
with
directions to the respondents to pass fresh
orders in the light of the judgment of
Pawan Kumar's Case (Supra).
 While passing the fresh order, the
respondent shall categorically consider the
effect that the petitioner has been acquitted
and the effect of the said case.

The respondent no.4 shall pass
the order within a period of three months
from the date of production of certified
copy of this order.

In view of above terms, the writ
petition is allowed."

9. A certified copy of the order
dated
19.12.2022
passed
in
Writ-A
No.6576 of 2021 along with a copy of the
judgment dated 02.05.2022 passed by the
Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar v. Union
of India and another, (2023) 12 SCC 317
were laid by the petitioner before the
Superintendent of Police, Hathras annexed
to his representation dated 26.12.2022. It is
the petitioner's case that after acquittal in
Sessions Trial No.236 of 2016 vide
judgment and order dated 17.07.2018, the
petitioner had brought the fact to the notice
of the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Etawah
vide
his
application
dated
25.07.2018.

10. According to the petitioner, so
far as the case under Section 3(1) of the
Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act,
1970 (for short, 'the Goondas Act') is
concerned, it was not within his knowledge
at all. He says that even in the police report,
that was submitted in the year 2018, there
is no mention of it. The said fact, according
to the petitioner, makes it evident that the
case, said to be registered against the
petitioner under the Goondas Act, was not
within the respondents' knowledge as well.
It
was
subsequently
considered
in
compliance with the orders of this Court
passed in Writ-A No.4831 of 2021.

11. It is also the petitioner's case
that when he moved an application to seek
information about the pending case under
the provisions of Section 3(1) of the
Goondas Act on 09.06.2021, invoking the
provisions of the Right to Information Act,
his application
was referred
to
the
Additional District Magistrate, Etawah.
The Additional District Magistrate, Etawah
has furnished information in 'question' and
'answer' form that Case Crime No.108 of
2016, under Section 3(1) of the Goondas
Act, P.S. Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah,
State v. Ram Sundar Pal, was not pending.
The petitioner pleads that case, giving rise
to Case Crime No.564 of 2015, under
Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and
Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, Police
Station Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah,
was a case of trivial nature, wherein the
petitioner has been acquitted, albeit giving
him the benefit of doubt. It is averred that
the petitioner's case is fully covered by the
law laid down by the Supreme Court in
112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Pawan Kumar (supra). It is also pleaded
that the impugned order has been passed
disregarding the order of remand passed by
this Court dated 19.12.2022 in Writ-A
No.6576 of 2021 and is one rendered in
breach of the principles laid down by the
Supreme Court in Avtar Singh and Pawan
Kumar. Much emphasis has been laid by
the petitioner on paragraph No.38.4.1. of
Avtar Singh to say that the principles in
this case have been utterly violated while
passing the impugned order.

12. Aggrieved, the petitioner has
instituted this writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution.

13. A notice of motion was issued
on 10.05.2023. A counter affidavit was
filed on behalf of respondent No.2 on
13.07.2023, to which no rejoinder has been
filed. A counter affidavit dated 25.07.2023
was filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3
and 4, but during the course of proceedings,
it was discovered that the same was not
traceable. Accordingly, a reconstructed
copy of the said affidavit was accepted on
record on 31.08.2024. The petitioner filed a
rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by
respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 13.09.2023.
Pending admission on 13.08.2024, the
parties having substantially exchanged
affidavit, the petition was admitted to
hearing, which proceeded on that day. The
hearing was adjourned to 26.09.2024. The
hearing was resumed on 24.10.224, after a
nomination by the Chief Justice, there
being a change of roster in the meantime.
The hearing concluded on 24.10.2024 and
judgment reserved.

14. Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar
Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of
Mr. Ram Krishna Yadav, learned Counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Roopesh Tiwari,
learned Standing Counsel appearing on
behalf of the State-respondent.

15. We have perused the impugned
order and the respondents' stand in the
counter
affidavit
as
also
the
other
circumstances relevant to a fair decision of
the petitioner's claim to appointment by the
respondents. There is no denying the fact
that on 09.06.2018, the petitioner put in a
notarized affidavit for the verification of
his character, where he stated that no
criminal case or matter has ever been
registered against him nor any police
investigation pending. He also said that he
has never been arrested in any criminal
case and that he has never been challaned
by the Police in a crime. Admittedly, on
16.03.2016, the petitioner was served with
a notice to remain present in the Court of
the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II,
Etawah on 17.03.2016, at the time of
submission of the charge-sheet against him
in Case Crime No.564 of 2015, under
Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and
Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, Police
Station Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah.
Therefore, on 16.03.2016, the petitioner
had acquired knowledge of the case
registered
against
him
and
being
investigated by the Police that had led to
the then proposed filing of a charge-sheet
against him. In course of time, the chargesheet was filed, the petitioner tried and
acquitted. Therefore, on the day, the
petitioner filed the affidavit for the
verification
of
his
character
dated
09.06.2018, he was very well cognizant of
the fact that a criminal case had been
registered against him, investigated and
that he was still facing trial. The judgment
of acquittal was delivered on 17.07.2018.

16. No doubt, the petitioner had
deliberately suppressed the criminal case
4 All. Ram Sundar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors
113
pending against him. The petitioner's
explanation, that the learned Counsel,
appearing for him in the criminal case, had
advised him that since a judgment of
acquittal had been entered, there was no
case against him, is not acceptable. The
judgment came on 17.07.2018, whereas the
affidavit was filed on 09.06.2018. There is
no way, the learned Counsel appearing for
the petitioner in the criminal case could
have told the petitioner that he had been
acquitted on 09.06.2018, when the learned
Counsel dictated the affidavit that the
petitioner filed, as asserted in paragraph
No.19 of the writ petition. Therefore, this is
indeed
a
case
where
the
petitioner
suppressed from the respondents the fact
that he was facing trial in a criminal case,
after investigation by the Police.

17. The principles laid down in
Avtar Singh do not universally and
without exception forbid the consideration
of a person's candidature, guilty of
suppression
or
furnishing
false
information
of
involvement
in
a
criminal case, at the time he makes his
application for employment or at the
time of verification of his character,
post selection. The principles laid down
in Avtar Singh are enumerated below:

 "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 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
114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. The general rule is that there
should be no suppression of information by
the candidate as to conviction, acquittal,
arrest or the pendency of a criminal case,
whether before or after entering service.
But, if information is suppressed about the
involvement in a criminal case, what would
be the impact thereof upon the candidature
of a person, or so to speak, his right to
appointment. It would depend on a variety
of factors. The principles, that are summed
up in paragraph No.38 of the report in
Avtar Singh, are backed by elaborate
reasons,
which
broadly
frown
upon
suppression
or
furnishing
of
false
information of involvement in a criminal
case by a candidate, but does not make it
an
indefeasible
ground,
leading
to
rejection of candidature in all cases. No
doubt, the principle in paragraph No.38.4
applies to a case, where suppression or false
information of involvement in a criminal
case is given, where a conviction or acquittal
has already happened, but it is not a
mathematical
formula
where
pending
judgment, the same principles cannot be
rationally extended. It is a well regarded
principle that a judgment is to be understood
for the principle that it lays down and never
read like a statute. The principles in Avtar
Singh give ample play for the exercise of
discretion in the matter to the Appointing
Authority. It makes provision for taking
notice of the special circumstances of a case
by the employer before passing an order of
termination of service or cancellation of
candidature for giving false information
about the criminal case. This contingency is
contemplated
even
in
cases
where
judgment has not been delivered.
4 All. Ram Sundar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors
115
19. There is also provision in
paragraph
No.38.3
to
take
into
consideration
government
orders/
instructions/ rules applicable to employees
at the time of deciding, whether their
candidature is liable to be cancelled on the
ground of suppression of involvement in a
criminal case etc. In cases, where there is
suppression and a judgment of conviction
or acquittal already there, cases of a trivial
nature, conviction being recorded, have
been held as ones not entitling the
employer to cancel the candidature or
appointment on the premise that if the petty
offence had been disclosed, it would not
have rendered the employee unfit for
appointment to the post. The case of
shouting slogans etc. at a young age has
been mentioned as an illustration of the
petty nature of a crime that does not
disentitle. Paragraph Nos.38.4.3 speaks of
the contingency if acquittal has already
been recorded in a case involving moral
turpitude or an offence, that is heinous, on
technical ground and it is not a case of
clean acquittal or benefit of reasonable
doubt has been given. In such cases, the
employer has been given the freedom to
consider all relevant facts, available as to
antecedents before arriving at a decision
whether
to
cancel
an
employee's
candidature. These are more or less
principles that have been paraphrased from
the ones laid down in Avtar Singh.

20. Peeping behind all these
principles, one cannot miss the fact that in
case of suppressed information about the
pendency of a criminal case, where a
judgment had already been passed, whether
of acquittal or conviction, or may be in a
case where it is shortly afterwards passed,
the first thing to be seen is if the offence,
that has been charged against the employee,
is of a petty nature or heinous. If it is
heinous, still the employer may consider
relevant facts as to antecedents of the
employee before arriving at a decision.

21. Before proceeding further, it
must be remarked that the heinous or the
petty nature of a criminal case cannot
always be determined on the basis of the
sections of the statute, under which the
offence is charged, though some provisions
of the statute more or less serve as an
indicia to the gravity of the offence. In
some cases, it almost always points out to
the offence being heinous, say an offence
punishable under Section 302 or 376 of the
Indian Penal Code. There are other
offences, where the sections charged may
indicate prima facie the nature of the
offence to be not serious or laced with
moral turpitude, always. The offences
charged against the petitioner are those
punishable under Sections 147, 452, 323,
504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the
SC/ST Act.

22. In determining, if the offences
charged against the petitioner were indeed
heinous or petty, it was incumbent on the
Superintendent of Police, Hathras, who
passed the impugned order, to briefly look
into the allegations and the evidence and
then form his opinion. The Superintendent
of Police has taken note of the fact that the
acquittal is not honourable, but one based
on benefit of doubt and a notice under
Section 344 was issued to the informant of
the case, Sajjan Singh for knowingly and
willfully giving false evidence in Court. He
has overlooked the fact that there was after
all no evidence against the petitioner. The
Superintendent
of
Police
has
also
overlooked the fact that the notice for a
prosecution on the charge of giving false
and fabricated evidence in Court, obviously
relates to the inculpatory part of the
116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
testimony given in the examination-in-chief
by the informant and not the exculpatory
part, that has come out during crossexamination. This matter ought have been
probed
and
considered
by
the
Superintendent of Police before judging the
effect the judgment of acquittal on the
rights of the petitioner to seek appointment.

23. After all, in the social milieu of
the day, a hard earned government
employment is often lost on account of
frivolous cases, launched against aspirants,
who are about to enter government service
and this case, as a prima facie reading of
the judgment would show, is set against the
background of a panchayat election rivalry
and all that happens in contemporary rural
life, where there are assaults on political
rivals and false charges galore. At the trial,
there was no convincing testimony noticed
by the learned Judge against the petitioner,
as a reading of the judgment prima facie
would show. The order passed by the
Superintendent
of
Police,
Hathras,
declining to accept the petitioner's claim,
does not show a careful consideration of
the
circumstances,
leading
to
the
petitioner's prosecution in the crime,
alleging assault and abuse with caste
suggestive words, all of which were not
proven at the trial. What the Superintendent
of Police ignored from consideration is the
fact that the offence charged against the
petitioner, that ended in acquittal, did not
involve the commission of an offence by
him or his co-accused, that would appear
heinous in nature. The charges involved do
not show that any serious injuries were
inflicted.

24. In fact, at the trial, the injuries,
whatever they were, were not proven by the
witnesses, who disowned the event. The
nature of the charge and evidence, and then
the stance of witnesses during trial, seen in
the context of a political rivalry in the
petitioner's native village relating to
panchayat elections, where the petitioner
had just been selected for government
service, has to be rationally and realistically
understood. If one were to see the charge,
nothing came out of it, but left the
petitioner stripped of his hard earned
government employment. Perhaps, that was
the purpose of laying the charge against the
petitioner
and
nothing
more.
The
Superintendent of Police did not consider
the charge and the evidence from this angle
at all, which ought have been done. In
order to do this, he was required to further
probe the petitioner's background and his
antecedents. If the petitioner was otherwise
a respectable young man with no criminal
antecedents, the complexion of the failed
criminal case against him, might have had a
different bearing upon his right to seek
public employment. The Superintendent of
Police did consider one more case against
the petitioner, about which he said that it
was suppressed too, and, later on, surfaced
due to a fresh police character verification
report, called on account of lapse of the
time period of six months.

25. The other case found against
the petitioner was said to be Case Crime
No.108 of 2016, under Section 3(1) of the
Goondas Act, P.S. Jaswant Nagar, District
Etawah. It was reported by the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Etawah through
his V.R. No.671 of 2021 dated 24.05.2021.
This case too was said to have been
suppressed by the petitioner at the time of
his character verification done through his
affidavit. Regarding this crime registered
against the petitioner as another case
deliberately suppressed, the petitioner's
case was considered by the Superintendent
of Police as one governed by paragraph
4 All. Ram Sundar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors
117
No.38.7 of the guidelines laid down in
Avtar Singh with regard to multiple
pending cases, regarding which false
information was given by a candidate. That
is a principle, where multiple pending cases
against a candidate, if not disclosed,
entitles the employer to pass appropriate
orders, cancelling his candidature or
terminating his appointment. But, is it true
for a fact or did the Superintendent of
Police consider that indeed a crime under
Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act was
registered against the petitioner or could
have been registered against him. We think
not. Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act does
not speak of any offence at all, but provides
for externment of Goondas, as defined
under the Goondas Act in proceedings to be
taken before the District Magistrate.

26. Section 3(1) of the Goondas
Act neither defines an offence nor
prescribes a punishment for it. It provides
for preventive proceedings to be taken by
the District Magistrate against a person,
who is a Goonda as defined under the
Goondas Act, by externing him from the
local limits of his jurisdiction or the district
or districts contiguous, as may be specified
in the order, or order such person to notify
his movements or report himself to such
authority as may be specified, or prohibit or
restrict possession for use by the person
proceeded with against of any article, as
may be specified in the order, all until the
expiry of six months. The provisions of
Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act never
contemplate a criminal offence at all. The
only criminal offence provided under the
Goondas Act is the one under Section 10,
which is regarding contravention of orders
passed under Sections 3, 4, 5 or 6. There is
no such case against the petitioner of
contravening any order of prohibition or
externment made under the Goondas Act
under Section 3 and a criminal offence
registered against him under Section 10. If
there were any doubt in this regard as to
what were the kind of proceedings that the
Superintendent
of
Police
took
into
consideration as an 'offence' under Section
3(1) of the Goondas Act, one has to look
into a report dated 02.07.2021, submitted
by the Inspector In-charge, P.S. Jaswant
Nagar, District Etawah, about this so called
crime that the petitioner committed under
Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act and
registered at the said police station as Case
Crime No.108 of 2016, to the Circle
Officer, Jaswant Nagar, Etawah. The
report, that the Inspector In-charge, P.S.
Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah submitted
to the Circle Officer, Jaswant Nagar,
Etawah, was apparently submitted in
answer to a demand under the Right to
Information Act regarding the aforesaid
crime. The report submitted by the
Inspector In-charge, P.S. Jaswant Nagar,
District Etawah, last mentioned, must be
quoted for every word of it:
"रिपोर्ट थाना जसवन्तनगि जनपद इर्ावा
सेवा मे,
श्रीमान क्षेत्राधिकािी महोदय
जसवन्तनगि इर्ावा

धवषयः पत्राांक- ज0सू0अ0 (261/23) के सन्दर्ट मे
RTI-2005 के तहत आवेदक श्री िामस ांदि पाल प त्र श्री प्रीतम
पाल धनवासी ग्राम कैस्त थाना जसवन्तनगि इर्ावा को सूचना देने
धवषयक।

महोदय,

आवेदक उपिोक्त द्वािा चाही गयी प्रस्तिवाि सूचना धनम्नवत
है-