# Ravendra Singh v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 556
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-12
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 68541 of 2015
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Donadi Ramesh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravendra-singh-v-u-o-i-ors-51832
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Law
-
Termination
of
Appointment
-
Suppression
of
4 All. Ravendra Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
557
Information - Petitioner Ravendra Singh's
appointment
as
Junior
Engineer-II
(Tele)
cancelled vide order dated 10/25.04.2012 for
suppressing involvement in a criminal case
(Sections 323, 324, 504 IPC) in attestation form
- Acquitted in 2005 before submitting form -
Central
Administrative
Tribunal
quashed
cancellation, directed reinSt.ment without back
wages - Held, suppression of trivial, acquitted
criminal case not fatal - Avtar Singh Vs
U.O.I.and Ravindra Kumar Vs St. of U.P.
followed, emphasizing employer's discretion to
consider special circumstances and antecedents
- Director General of Police, Tamilnadu Vs J.
Raghunees distinguished - Tribunal's order
upheld, no back wages for period not served -
Both writ petitions (by petitioner and U.O.I.)
dismissed. (Para 12-18)

Writ petitions dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
where the petitioner has approbated and
reprobated. She now assails the orders passed
by the Departmental Authorities on grounds
that there is no evidence regarding a second
marriage solemnized by her husband, in the
absence of which, he could not be punished
with dismissal from service. She herself
testified against her husband about him living
in adultery, if not solemnizing a second
marriage and made him confess to it. Now,
she seeks to take advantage of the subtle
distinction between a charge of adultery and
bigamy, placing reliance upon the authority
of this Court in Kuber Singh. Kuber Singh,
no doubt, drew a distinction between the
charge of adultery and bigamy, holding that it
was bigamy that was punishable as a
misconduct under the Rules of 1956. But
Kuber Singh was a case which did not rest,
as the learned Judge has chosen to describe it
"on an allegation of adultery but solely on an
alleged violation of Rule 29 of the 1956
Rules". This is not the case here. The charge
here, to begin with, is one based on amorous
indiscretion
and
adultery,
howsoever
awkwardly worded the charge might have
been. The further remark in Kuber Singh on
which the learned Counsel for the petitioner
has much harped upon that adultery is no
longer an offence in view of the Constitution
Bench decision of the Supreme Court in
Joseph Shine (supra) would also be of no
avail to the petitioner, for the reason that
while adultery may no longer be a criminal
offence, but would still be a service
misconduct, particularly, in the terms the
charge is cast. In the opinion of this Court,
therefore, the decision in Kuber Singh, does
not, at all, come to the petitioner's rescue.

25. Therefore, quite apart from the
legal validity of the proceedings taken
against the petitioner's deceased-husband
and the orders made against him, given all
the facts noticed hereinabove, regarding the
petitioner's action in reporting her husband
to the Departmental Authorities on a
misconduct of adultery etc. and pursuing it
to the hilt, in the considered opinion of this
Court, disentitle her to seek equitable relief
by now turning around and doing a
somersault.

26. In the result, there is no force in
this writ petition. It fails and stands
dismissed.

27. Costs easy.

28. Let a copy of this order be
communicated to the Commissioner of
Police, Aligarh by the office within a
fortnight.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 556
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.

Writ A No. 68541 of 2015
With
Writ A No. 41433 of 2015

Ravendra Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Bhupendra Nath Singh, Sri Devendra
Pratap Singh, Poorwa Agarwal, Sri Punit
Kumar Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vivek Singh, Sri Anil Kumar, Sri Ashok
Kumar Gaur

A.
Service
Law
-
Termination
of
Appointment
-
Suppression
of
4 All. Ravendra Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
557
Information - Petitioner Ravendra Singh's
appointment
as
Junior
Engineer-II
(Tele)
cancelled vide order dated 10/25.04.2012 for
suppressing involvement in a criminal case
(Sections 323, 324, 504 IPC) in attestation form
- Acquitted in 2005 before submitting form -
Central
Administrative
Tribunal
quashed
cancellation, directed reinSt.ment without back
wages - Held, suppression of trivial, acquitted
criminal case not fatal - Avtar Singh Vs
U.O.I.and Ravindra Kumar Vs St. of U.P.
followed, emphasizing employer's discretion to
consider special circumstances and antecedents
- Director General of Police, Tamilnadu Vs J.
Raghunees distinguished - Tribunal's order
upheld, no back wages for period not served -
Both writ petitions (by petitioner and U.O.I.)
dismissed. (Para 12-18)

Writ petitions dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

1. The Director General of Police, Tamilnadu,
Mylapore Vs J. Raghunees; 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1379

2. Ravindra Kumar Vs St. of U.P.; 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 180

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

4. Pawan Kumar Vs U.O.I.; (2022) SCC OnLine
SC 532

5. Mohammed Imran Vs St. of Maharashtra;
(2019) 17 SCC 696

6. Satish Chandra Yadav Vs U.O.I.; (2023) 7
SCC 530

7. Ram Kumar Vs St. of U.P.; (2011) 14 SCC
709

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.
&
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh, J.)

1. Heard Shri Punit Kumar Gupta,
learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ -
A No. 68541 of 2015 and respondent no.2
in connected Writ-A No.41433 of 2015 as
well as Shri A.K.Gaur, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Shri Anil Kumar,
learned counsel appearing for Union of
India in both writ petitions.

2. Writ - A No. 68541 of 2015 has
been filed with the following prayer:-

"I. Issue a writ or direction in the
nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
order dated 27.05.2015 passed by the
respondent no.4 (Anneuxre No.1 to this
writ petition) to the extent denying full
wages, allowances and other service
benefit to the petitioner, from the date when
Junior to the petitioner in merit/selection
list as given appointment by the respondent
No.1 to 3.

II. Issue a writ or direction in the
nature of mandamus to the respondent No.1
to 3 to treat the petitioner in service and
pay salary and other allowances etc.
admissible to the post from date Junior in
the merit/select list was given appointment
in service, till the date petitioner is taken
on duty by the respondents."

3. Writ-A No.41433 of 2015 has been
filed with the following prayer:

"(a) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Certiorari,
calling for the records and quashing the
order dated 27.05.2015 (Annexure No.1 of
the writ petition) passed by the learned
Central
Administrative
Tribunal,
Allahabad, respondent No.1."

4. The facts in both writ petitions are
similar, therefore, they are being decided
finally with a common judgment.

5. Facts in brief are that pursuant to
the advertisement issued by Railway
558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Recruitment Board, petitioner/respondent
no.2-Ravendra Singh applied for the post of
Junior Engineer-II (Tele). He appeared in
the written test and declared successful,
subsequently, he was called for interview
and after being selected, his name was sent
to
General
Manager,
North
Western
Railway, Jaipur vide Railway Recruitment
Board, Ajmer letter dated 31.08.2011.
Thereafter, he joined in the respondent
organization on 02.11.2011. Subsequently,
the respondent no.3 issued a show cause
notice to Ravendra Singh on 12.03.2012 for
concealment of fact in replying Item
No.11(b)
in
the
Attestation
Form.
Thereafter, he submitted his reply on
23.03.2011,
Annexure-4
to
the
writ
petition. Considering the said reply the
respondents have passed an order on
10/25.05.2012, cancelling the appointment
of the petitioner. Assailing the said order,
petitioner- Ravendra Singh filed Original
Application No.1592 of 2012 before the
Central Administrative Tribunal, with a
consequential prayer to treat the petitioner
in service from the date when junior in
merit in the select list was given
appointment and pay the salary and other
consequential benefits including seniority
etc.

6. In the counter reply filed on behalf
of the respondents before the Tribunal, the
facts of the case have not been disputed. It
has been submitted that the panel dated
31.08.2011 supplied by R.R.B. has expired
on 31.08.2012 in terms of Railway Board
Letter dated 15.03.2012 and it will not be
feasible to give appointment to those
candidates who have furnished false
information and suppressed any factual
information And the said warning is also
contained in Railway Board's Letter dated
20.10.2013 at Item No.1 in the Attestation
Form. It was further stated that the
applicant has furnished false information in
his Attestation Form and deliberately
concealed
the
fact
regarding
his
prosecution in a criminal matter. It was
further contended that earlier the petitioner
was
prosecuted
in
a
criminal
case
registered under Section 323/504/325 IPC.

7. The submission of the learned
counsel
appearing
on
behalf
of
petitioner/respondent no.2-Ravendra Singh
is that due to ignorance and mistake,
Ravendra Singh has not given true answer
to the question relating to prosecution. It is
submitted that in the year 2001, an N.C.R.
under Section 323, 504 IPC was registered
against him and subsequently a chargesheet
under Section 323, 324 and 504 IPC was
submitted. In the said case, complainant as
well as injured Virvati did not support the
prosecution version and stated that they
named the applicant -Ravendra Singh on
saying of villagers and based on the said
statement Ravendra Singh was acquitted
from charges vide judgment and order
passed by the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No.5, Aligarh dated
04.03.2005. It was further submitted that at
the time of incident Ravendra Singh was
aged about 18 years and at the time of
filling the Attestation Form, he was 25
years old, submission therefore is that such
minor indiscretions should be condoned.

8. Both the learned counsel have
relied upon several judgments passed by
Hon'ble Apex Court.

9.

Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties as well as the law laid down by the
Hon'ble
Apex
Court
the
Central
Administrative Tribunal has allowed the
Original Application filed by the applicant-
4 All. Ravendra Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
559
Ravendra
Singh
with
the
following
observation:-

"11.
Accordingly,
O.A.
is
allowed.
The
impugned
order
dated
10/25.04.2012 passed by Respondent No.3
is set aside and quashed. The respondents
are directed to take a lenient view in the
matter and take his joining on the post, he
was
selected.
Respondents
are
also
directed to treat him in service form the
date his junior has been given appointment
but he will not be entitled to the payment of
salary for the period he was not actually
worked. No order as to costs."

10. Assailing the said order, Union of
India as well as petitioner in Writ A
No.68541 of 2015 and respondent no.2 in
Writ A No.41433 of 2015-Ravendra Singh
both filed separate writ petitions before this
Court.

11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of Union of India has contended
that
the
order
dated
10/25.04.2012
cancelling the appointment of the petitioner
was in accordance with the legislation
which is in vogue and he has placed
reliance upon warning given in the
Attestation Form, which reads as under:-

"1. साक्षांकन प्रपर्त्र में झूठी सूचना
देना अर्थिा हकसी भी प्रकार की तथ्यात्मक
सूचना को धिपाना अनिजता मानी जायेगी और
ऐसा करने से अभ्यर्थी सरकार के अिीन नौकरी
के धिए अयोग्य ठिराया जा सकता िै।

The
furnishing
of
false
information or suppression of any factual
information in the Attestation Form would
be a disqualification and is likely to render
the candidate unfit for employment under
the Government.

2.यहद इस प्रपर्त्र को भरने तर्था भेजने
के पिचात् ििािात में रखा जाये, दोषी ठिराया
जाये, िम्जजत आहद हकया जाये, तो उसके बारे में
यर्थाम्स्र्थती संघ िोक सेिा आयोग अर्थिा रेि
भती बोडज अर्थिा उस प्राधिकारी, म्जसे पििे
साक्ष्यांकन प्रपर्त्र भेजा गया िैं, को ब्यौरे की
तुरंत सूचना दी जाय। ऐसा न करने पर यि
समझा जायेगा हक तथ्यात्मक सूचना धिपायी
गयी िैं।

If detained, convicted, debarred
etc. Subsequent to the completion and
submission of this form, the details should
be communicated immediately to the Union
Public Service Commission or the Railway
Recruitment Board or the Authority to
whom to Attestation From has been sent
earlier as the case may be, failing which it
will be deemed to be a suppression of
factual information.

3.यहद हकसी व्यवि के सेिा-काि में,
हकसी भी समय यि तथ्य नोहर्स में आता िै हक
इस साक्ष्यांकन प्रपर्त्र में झूठी सूचना दी गयी िै
अर्थिा तथ्यात्मक सूचना धिपायी गयी िै तो
उसकी सेिाएाँ समाप्त की जा सकती िै।

If the fact that false information
has been furnished or that there has been
suppression of any factual information in
the Attestation Form comes to notice at any
time during the service of a person, his
services would be liable to be terminated."

12. However, the information given
by the petitioner in the Attestation Form on
question
that
"have
you
ever
been
prosecuted", he replied "No", which is
contrary to the warning given in the
Attestation Form. Learned Senior Counsel
further contended that as the respondent
no.2-Ravendra
Singh
has
concealed
560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
material facts by giving wrong information,
therefore, the respondent no.3 has rightly
passed the order dated 10/25.04.2012
cancelling the appointment of Ravendra
Singh. In support of his argument, learned
Senior Counsel has relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of The Director General of Police,
Tamilnadu, Mylapore Vs. J. Raghunees,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1379, wherein also
the respondent-candidate has not disclosed
the
complete
information
with
his
involvement in criminal case and his
appointment was also rejected. Paragraphs
13, 14, 15 and 16 of the said judgment read
as under:-

"13. The issue in the matter is not
of eligibility of the respondent to the post in
the light of Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu
Special
Police
Subordinate
Service
Rules,1978 rather that of suppression of
material information which was required to
be disclosed in column 15 of the
verification roll. The respondent has
certainly
not
disclosed
the
correct
information. His honorable acquittal or
acquittal by giving benefit of doubt is not
material and relevant but what is relevant
is the full and complete disclosure of the
information regarding his involvement in a
criminal case which has been suppressed
by him.

14. In Avtar Singh case, a threeJudge Bench of this Court while dealing
with a similar kind of situation summarised
the legal position by stating that (i)
Information given by the candidate to the
employer as to his conviction, acquittal,
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. (ii) In cases where conviction
or acquittal had already taken place before
filling the application/verification form, the
employer may consider all relevant facts
available as to antecedents and may take
appropriate decision as to the continuance
of the employee. (iii) and even if the
employee had made truthful declaration of
a concluded criminal case, the employer
still has the right to consider antecedents of
the candidate/employee and cannot be
compelled to appoint him/her.

15. In other words, the candidate
in the first instance is obliged to give
correct information as to his conviction,
acquittal or arrest or pendency of the
criminal case and there should be no
suppression or false mention of required
information. Secondly, even if truthful
declaration is made by him, he would not
be entitled to appointment as a matter of
right and that the employer still has the
right to consider his antecedents.

16. In the case at hand, though
the respondent may be eligible for
appointment but since he has not disclosed
the complete information with regard to his
involvement in a criminal case, wherein he
might have been acquitted earlier even
before verification, he cannot escape the
guilt
of
suppressing
the
material
information as required by column 15 of
the verification roll. Keeping in mind that
the respondent was a candidate for
recruitment to a disciplined force, the nondisclosure of the information of his
involvement in the criminal case and
subsequent acquittal therefrom cast a
serious doubt upon his character and the
antecedents which is sufficient enough to
disentitle him from employment."

13. Shri Punit Kumar Gupta, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner in
Writ- A No. 68541 of 2015 and respondent
no.2 in connected Writ-A No.41433 of
2015 contended that on the date of
4 All. Ravendra Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
561
submitting
the
Attestation
Form
the
petitioner/respondent no.2-Ravendra Singh
had already acquitted from charges and no
case was pending against him, therefore,
replying the question in the Attestation
Form that "have you ever been prosecuted"
he answered "No". He further argued that
in the year 2001 an N.C.R. under Section
323, 504 IPC was registered against the
applicant and in trial chargesheet has been
submitted against him under Section 323,
324 and 504 IPC, out of which two
offences, namely, offence under section
323 and 504 IPC is compoundable in nature
and
Section
324
IPC
provided
for
imprisonment for a period of three years
only. In support of his argument he has
relied upon the judgment passed by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and
Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 180,
paragraphs 24, 25, 26, 27 and 29 whereof
are quoted as under:

"24. More recently in Pawan
Kumar vs. Union of India and Another,
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 532, involving
appointment to the post of Constable in
Railway Protection Force and setting aside
the order of discharge due to alleged
suppression in the verification form, this
Court, after noticing Avtar Singh (Supra)
held as under:-

"11. This cannot be disputed that
the candidate who intends to participate in
the selection process is always required to
furnish correct information relating to his
character
and
antecedents
in
the
verification/attestation form before and
after induction into service.

It is also equally true that the
person who has suppressed the material
information or has made false declaration
indeed has no unfettered right of seeking
appointment or continuity in service, but at
least has a right not to be dealt with
arbitrarily and power has to be judiciously
exercised by the competent authority in a
reasonable manner with objectivity having
due regard to the facts of the case on hand.

It goes without saying that the
yardstick/standard which has to be applied
with regard to adjudging suitability of the
incumbent always depends upon the nature
of post, nature of duties, effect of
suppression
over
suitability
to
be
considered by the authority on due
diligence of various aspects but no hard
and fast rule of thumb can be laid down in
this regard.

13. What emerges from the
exposition as laid down by this Court is
that by mere suppression of material/false
information regardless of the fact whether
there is a conviction or acquittal has been
recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be
discharged/terminated axiomatically from
service just by a stroke of pen.

At the same time, the effect of
suppression of material/false information
involving in a criminal case, if any, is left
for the employer to consider all the
relevant facts and circumstances available
as to antecedents and keeping in view the
objective criteria and the relevant service
rules into consideration, while taking
appropriate
decision
regarding
continuance/suitability of the employee into
service. What being noticed by this Court is
that mere suppression of material/false
information in a given case does not mean
that
the
employer
can
arbitrarily
discharge/terminate the employee from
service.

19. Consequently, the appeal
succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of
the Division Bench of the High Court dated
17th November, 2015 and the order of
discharge dated 24th April, 2015 and dated
23rd December, 2021 are hereby quashed
562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and set aside. The Respondents are
directed to reinstate the appellant in
service on the post of Constable on which
he
was
selected
pursuant
to
his
participation in reference to employment
notice no. 1/2011 dated 27th February,
2011.

We make it clear that the
appellant will not be entitled for the
arrears of salary for the period during
which he has not served the force and at
the same time he will be entitled for all
notional benefits, including pay, seniority
and other consequential benefits, etc.
Necessary orders shall be passed within a
period of one month from today. No costs."

25. In Mohammed Imran vs.
State of Maharashtra and Others, (2019)
17 SCC 696, no doubt, a case where a
candidate made the disclosure of criminal
case, this Court speaking through Navin
Sinha, J. made the following telling
observation which resonates with the hard
realities of everyday existence:

"5. Employment opportunities are
a scarce commodity in our country. Every
advertisement invites a large number of
aspirants for limited number of vacancies.
But that may not suffice to invoke sympathy
for grant of relief where the credentials of
the candidate may raise serious questions
regarding
suitability,
irrespective
of
eligibility. Undoubtedly, judicial service is
very different from other services and the
yardstick of suitability that may apply to
other services, may not be the same for a
judicial service.

But
there
cannot
be
any
mechanical or rhetorical incantation of
moral turpitude, to deny appointment in
judicial service simplicitor. Much will
depend on the facts of a case. Every
individual deserves an opportunity to
improve, learn from the past and move
ahead in life by self-improvement. To make
past
conduct,
irrespective
of
all
considerations, an albatross around the
neck of the candidate, may not always
constitute justice. Much will, however
depend on the fact situation of a case."

26. We have also kept in mind the
recent judgment of this Court in Satish
Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India and
Others, (2023) 7 SCC 530 and the broad
principles set out by this Court in para 93,
especially, paras 93.1, 93.3 & 93.7. Even
the broad principles set out therein
recognize that each case should be
scrutinized thoroughly by the public
employer concerned and the Court is
obliged to examine whether the procedure
of enquiry adopted by the authority
concerned was fair and reasonable. Avtar
Singh (Supra) in para 38.2 has held that
while passing the order of cancellation of
candidature for giving false information,
the employer may take notice of special
circumstances of the case, if any, while
giving such information. Further, in para
38.4.3 of Avtar Singh (Supra) the principle
that, in case of suppression or false
information of involvement of criminal
case, where acquittal has already been
recorded, the employer can still consider
all
relevant
facts
available
as
to
antecedents and may take appropriate
decision as to the continuance of the
employee. We have read and understood
the broad principles laid down in Satish
Chandra Yadav (supra) with the following
crucial para in Avtar Singh (Supra):

"35. Suppression of "material"
information presupposes that what is
suppressed
that
"matters"
not
every
technical or trivial matter. The employer
has to act on due consideration of
rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of
powers in order to cancel candidature or
for terminating the services of employee.
Though a person who has suppressed the
4 All. Ravendra Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
563
material
information
cannot
claim
unfettered
right
for
appointment
or
continuity in service but he has a right not
to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of
power has to be in reasonable manner
with objectivity having due regard to facts
of cases."

27. We have also examined the
judgment in Director General of Police,
Tamilnadu, Mylapore vs. J. Raghunees,
(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1379 and we find
that the case of the appellant is more
aligned with the facts in the judgment of
this Court in Pawan Kumar (supra),
Sandeep
(supra)
and
Ram
Kumar
(supra). Hence, we find that the judgment
in J. Raghunees (supra) is clearly
distinguishable.

28. The nature of the office, the
timing and nature of the criminal case; the
overall consideration of the judgement of
acquittal; the nature of the query in the
application/verification form; the contents
of the character verification reports; the
socio economic strata of the individual
applying; the other antecedents of the
candidate; the nature of consideration and
the
contents
of
the
cancellation/termination order are some
of the crucial aspects which should enter
the judicial verdict in adjudging suitability
and in determining the nature of relief to
be ordered.

29. Having discussed the legal
position above, it is necessary to set out
certain special features that obtain in the
case at hand.

i. The appellant hails from the
small village Bagapar, P.O. Kataura,
Police Station Gauri Bazar, District
Deoria, U.P.

ii. On the date of the application,
there was no criminal case pending and
there was no suppression in the application
form.

iii.
The
criminal
case
was
registered when he was 21 years of age for
the offences very similar to the one referred
to in Sandeep Kumar (supra) and even in
the criminal case he was acquitted.

iv.
No
doubt,
the
multiple
columns in the verification affidavit,
questions were asked from him in different
permutations and combinations. He must
have been in a deep dilemma as there was
an imminent prospect of losing his
employment.

v. Most importantly, we find from
the verification documents fairly and
candidly made available by the learned
Additional Advocate General, that the
verification report after noticing the
criminal case and the subsequent acquittal
stated that his character was good, that no
complaints were found against him and
that his general reputation was good.

vi. Not stopping there, the person
who visited the spot even wished him a
bright future in the report.

vii. The SHO, Gauri Bazar Police
Station, who forwarded the report to the
Superintendent of Police after reiterating
the contents of the report observed that he
was acquitted and no appeal was filed.
Further, there was no other case pending
and nor was any case registered against
the candidate.

viii. The SHO certified the
character of the candidate as excellent and
that he was eligible to do Government
Service under the State Government. He
annexed the report of the Police Station as
well as the report of the Gram Pradhan
and the Court documents.

ix. The Superintendent of Police,
in his letter to the Commandant, endorsed
the report and reiterated that the character
of the candidate was excellent.

x. While examining whether the
procedure adopted for enquiry by the
564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authority was fair and reasonable, we find
that the order of cancellation of 12.04.2005
does
not
even
follow
the
mandate
prescribed in Clause 4 of the Form of
verification of character set out in the
earlier part of this judgment. Like it was
found in Ram Kumar (supra) instead of
considering whether the appellant was
suitable for appointment, the Appointing
Authority
has
mechanically
held
his
selection was irregular and illegal because
the appellant had furnished an affidavit
with incorrect facts. Hence, even applying
the broad principles set out in para 93.7 of
Satish Chandra Yadav (supra), we find
that the order of cancellation dated
12.04.2005 is neither fair nor reasonable.
Clause 9 of the recruitment notification has
to be read in the context of the law laid
down in the cases set out hereinabove."

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has also relied upon the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Ram
Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others,
(2011) 14 SCC 709

15. In fact, both the counsel appearing
for petitioner- Ravindra Singh as well as
appearing for Union India have agreed with
the
observations
made
in
Ravindra
Kumar (supra), paragraph 30 whereof
reads as under:-

30. On the facts of the case and in
the backdrop of the special circumstances
set out hereinabove, where does the non
disclosure of the unfortunate criminal case,
(which too ended in acquittal), stand in the
scheme of things? In our opinion on the
peculiar facts of the case, we do not think it
can be deemed fatal for the appellant.
Broad-brushing every non-disclosure as a
disqualification, will be unjust and the
same will tantamount to being completely
oblivious to the ground realities obtaining
in this great, vast and diverse country.
Each case will depend on the facts and
circumstances that prevail thereon, and the
court will have to take a holistic view,
based on objective criteria, with the
available precedents serving as a guide. It
can never be a one size fits all scenario.

16. Considering the contentions raised
by both the learned counsels, and also the
observations made by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in J. Raghunees (supra) as well as
in Ravindra Kumar (supra). In fact, in
Ravindra Kumar (supra) the Hon'ble
Apex Court has also considered the
observations
made
in J.
Raghunees
(supra) as well as considering the ratio
decided in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India
and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471. In para 38
of Avtar Singh (supra) it has been
categorically held that while passing the
order of cancellation of candidature for
giving false information, the employer may
take notice of special circumstances of the
case, if any, while giving such information,
and further held in para 38.4.3 that
suppression
or
false
information
of
involvement in a criminal case where
acquittal had already been recorded, the
employer can consider all relevant facts
available as to antecedents, and can take
appropriate decision. No doubt, on perusal
of the facts of this case that crime
registered against the petitioner/respondent
no.2-Ravendra Singh, under Sections 323,
324 and 504 IPC is trivial in nature, and the
facts remains that he was acquitted from
charges before submitting his Attestation
Form.

17. Taking into consideration the facts
and circumstances of the case, and the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in J.
Raghunees (supra), Ravindra Kumar
4 All. Jamin & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
565
(supra) as well as in Avtar Singh (supra),
we do not find any good ground to interfere
in the order passed by the Tribunal.

18. However, as observed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Ravindra Kumar (supra) that employee is
not entitled for any arrears of salary for the
period during which he has not served, and
the same was also taken care by the
Tribunal in its order, accordingly, both writ
petitions are dismissed.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 565
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 2399 of 2024

Jamin & Anr. ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Sheikh Wali Uz Zaman

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 319, 397, 401
& 482 - Inherent power - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148 & 302/149
- Summoning of additional accused -
Revisional powers - Ends of justice - Trial
court's
power
to
summon
additional
accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. not
limited by conclusion of trial against
original accused - High Court's revisional
powers to secure ends of justice. (Para
24-30)

(B)
Criminal
Procedure
Code,
1973
(Cr.P.C.) - Section 319 - Scope and Power
of Summoning Additional Accused - Power
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be
exercised only during the pendency of trial
before the pronouncement of conviction
or acquittal - If the trial against the
originally
summoned
accused
is
concluded, a summoning order under
Section 319 is not sustainable. (Para -12)

(C)
Criminal
Procedure
Code,
1973
(Cr.P.C.) - Section 319(4) - Fresh Trial and
Rehearing of Witnesses - Once a person is
summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the
proceedings against them shall commence
afresh, and witnesses will be re-heard -
held - Conclusion of trial against the other
accused persons, who had been summoned
originally, does not cause any prejudice to the
applicant, as the trial against the applicants
would be held afresh and they will have the
right to defend themselves in accordance with
the law.
(Para 24)

Applicants summoned to face trial in connection
with an FIR - for murder of complainant's
brother - Initially, charges were filed only
against two accused - investigation against
applicants was pending - Several applications
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. were filed to summon
applicants - which were rejected - revision
allowed application to be reconsidered - leading
to impugned order summoning applicants in
2024 - trial against others had concluded -
Applicants cannot be summoned now - Court
upheld trial court's decision - finding no
jurisdictional
error
and
noting
sufficient
evidence against the applicants.(Para 1 - 23 )

HELD: - Impugned order does not stand
vitiated merely because trial against other
accused
persons
stands
concluded.
Nonsummoning of accused persons against whom
there was ample evidence warranting their trial,
would defeat the ends of justice. Order rejecting
application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was set
aside by this Court in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction and it is only thereafter, that the trial
Court has summoned the applicants under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. Any interference with the
order summoning the applicants to face trial
would in fact defeat the ends of justice, which
would be contrary to the object for which the
inherent powers of this Court are meant to be
exercised. (Para - 25 ,29,30)