# Sanjay Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 7 ILRA 243
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-07-13
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 3922 of 2020
- **Bench:** Vivek Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-kumar-tiwari-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45874
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A. Service Law - U.P. Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999: -
244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rule 4; Constitution of India:- Article 226
- Suspension - It is of utmost necessity
that the petitioner approaching the Writ
Court must come with clean hands, put
forward all the facts before the Court
without
concealing
or
suppressing
anything and seek an appropriate relief. If
there is no candid disclosure of relevant
and material facts or the petitioner is
guilty of misleading the Court, his petition
may be dismissed at the threshold without
considering the merits of the claim -
Petitioner,
who
was
expected
to
be
a
responsible government employee, even had
powers to look after finances on behalf of State,
was
suspended
on
charges
of
financial
irregularity. Thereafter, he approached this
Court by attempting to manoeuvre facts/making
false statement of facts. Court finds that the
petitioner has purposely concealed relevant
facts/made false statements before this Court,
and therefore, dismissed the present petition.
(Para 13, 14)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

7 All. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
243
constraints and limitations in academic
matters."

24. In the case of Transport and
Dock Workers Union vs. Mumbai Port
Trust reported in (2011) 2 SCC page 575,
the Apex Court has held that "Excessive
interference by the judiciary in the
functions of the executive is not proper. In
several decisions, we have held that there
must be judicial restraint in such matters."
It was further held that Judges must
maintain
judicial
self-restraint
while
exercising the powers of judicial review of
administrative
of
judicial
decisions.
Adjudication must be done within the
system of historically validated restraints
and conscious minimization of the Judges'
preferences. The Court must not embarrass
the administrative authorities and must
realize that administrative authorities have
expertise in the filed of administration
while
the
Court
does
not.
In
the
administrative matters the Court should,
therefore, ordinarily defer to the judgment
of the administrators unless the decision is
clearly violative of some statutes or is
shocking arbitrary.

25. From perusal of the aforesaid
judgments it is clear that the parameters of
the judicial review are therefore well defined
and it is well settled that the court cannot sit
in appeal over the decision taken by the
experts in academic field or interfere with the
decision on specious grounds of malafides or
bias. Nonetheless, the judicial restraint does
not confer unfettered and unbridled powers
on the selection committee to act arbitrarily
or illegally in total violations of statutory
rules. In such situations, it is within the
jurisdiction of the Court to scrutinize the
decision-making process and test the decision
on the touch stone of illegality, irrationality or
procedural impropriety. In so far this case is
concerned, from perusal of the facts as
narrated above, we are of the opinion that no
illegality or irregularity whatsoever has been
committed by the selection committee in
respect of selection and appointment of the
respondent no. 3 on the post of Director of
the Institution in question. No material
whatsoever has been brought on record
neither any argument has been made
regarding malafide or bias in respect of the
selection of the respondent no. 3. In the
absence of the same, no relief can be granted
to the petitioner, in so far as the present writ
petition is concerned.

26. For the reasons mentioned above,
we find that the writ petition lacks merit and
is liable to be dismissed.

27. Accordingly the writ petition is
dismissed.

28. No order as to cost.
----------
(2020)07ILR A243
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.07.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

Service Single No. 3922 of 2020

Sanjay Kumar Tiwari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Gaurav Mehrotra, Shubham Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - U.P. Government Servant
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999: -
244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rule 4; Constitution of India:- Article 226
- Suspension - It is of utmost necessity
that the petitioner approaching the Writ
Court must come with clean hands, put
forward all the facts before the Court
without
concealing
or
suppressing
anything and seek an appropriate relief. If
there is no candid disclosure of relevant
and material facts or the petitioner is
guilty of misleading the Court, his petition
may be dismissed at the threshold without
considering the merits of the claim -
Petitioner,
who
was
expected
to
be
a
responsible government employee, even had
powers to look after finances on behalf of State,
was
suspended
on
charges
of
financial
irregularity. Thereafter, he approached this
Court by attempting to manoeuvre facts/making
false statement of facts. Court finds that the
petitioner has purposely concealed relevant
facts/made false statements before this Court,
and therefore, dismissed the present petition.
(Para 13, 14)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. K.D. Sharma Vs Steel Authority of India
Limited . & ors., (2008) 12 SCC 481 (Para 13)

Petition
challenges
suspension
order
dated 31.01.2020.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.)

1. The case is taken up through Video
Conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Gaurav Mehrotra,
learned counsel for petitioner as well as
learned Standing Counsel.

3. This writ petition has come along
with Writ Petition (S/S) No.6303 of 2020
(Pushpanjali Mitra Gautam Vs. State of
U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Lko. and
Another) challenging the suspension order
dated 31.01.2020 whereby two Assistant
Transport Officers were suspended, one
being Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari Petitioner
in the present petition and other Smt.
Pushpanjali Mitra Gautam in the connected
case. The suspension is on charges of non
deposit of certain amounts collected from
time to time in the Government treasury
from January, 2018 to June, 2018.

4. The facts would be clear from the
two orders of this court, first the interim
relief order dated 11.02.2020 in the present
petition which reads:

" Heard Shri Gaurav Mehrotra
and
Shri
Shubham
Tripathi,
learned
counsels for petitioner and learned State
Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite
parties.

Petitioner has challenged order
dated 31st January 2020 suspending
petitioner from service on charges of
momentary embezzlement.

Learned counsel for petitioner
has submitted that although the period of
momentary
embezzlement
has
been
indicated in the impugned order as 23rd
January 2018 till 07th June 2018 but
petitioner was posted in the said District
only on 22nd May 2018 as would be
evident from the charge certificate which is
annexed to petition. It has also been
submitted that petitioner in fact was the one
who had brought the aforesaid facts to the
knowledge of authority by means of his
letter dated 17th January 2019 and it was
at
his
instance
that
the
aforesaid
momentary
embezzlement
was
taken
cognizance of by authority concerned.
Learned counsel has also drawn attention
to the letter dated 07th February 2019
written by petitioner with regard to
aforesaid
fact,
which
has
been
acknowledged in the order dated 13th June
7 All. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
245
2019 suspending Shri Tara Chand clerk
concerned. Learned counsel has submitted
that
after
completion
of
inquiry
proceedings against the said Shri Tara
Chand, he was visited with minor penalty
on account of fact that there was no loss to
State Exchequer petitioner.

Learned counsel for petitioner as
such has submitted that once the main
perpetrator has been punished with minor
penalty, at best, though not admitting,
petitioner would be liable only for
negligence in case found guilty for which
major penalty cannot be imposed and
therefore in such circumstances, suspension
cannot be resorted to in terms of Rule 4 of
U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules 1999.

Prima
facie,
submission
advanced by learned counsel for petitioner
has force for which opposite parties are
granted four weeks' time to file detailed
counter affidavit. List this case in the week
commencing 16th March 2020. In the
meantime, operation of impugned order
darted 31st January 2020 shall remain
stayed."

5. In the petition of Pushpanjali Mitra
Gautam upon hearing this Court on
03.03.2020 passed the following order:

"Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

By means of this petition, the
petitioner has assailed the Office Memo
dated 31.01.2020, by means of which the
petitioner
has
been
placed
under
suspension.

Learned counsel for the petitioner
has contended that the allegations so
levelled against the petitioner is that the
amount so collected during the period from
23.01.2018 to 07.06.2018 to the tune of Rs.
9,48,049/- has not been deposited in the
Government Treasury while the petitioner
was discharging on the post of ARTO
(Administration) at that point of time.

Learned counsel for the petitioner
has drawn attention of this Court towards
para 13 of the writ petition which is being
reproduced herein below:

"That Shri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari
was posted in Raebareli on the post of
ARTO
(Enforcement)
from
dated
01.07.2017 to 21.05.2018 hence it is clear
that the dated i.e. 23.01.2018, 24.01.2018,
25.01.2018,
27.01.2018,
29.01.2018,
02.04.2018, 16.05.2018 on which amount
from the challan compounding fees was
realised in the enforcement section, Sri
Sanjay Kumar Tiwari in his capacity of
supervising
enforcement
section
was
primarily responsible to oversee/supervise
physically whether amount collected by
enforcement clerk Sri Tara Chand who
himself was cashier also, has been
forwarded
from
enforcement
section
Almirah to the administration section cash
chest or not. He failed to supervise the
movement of the compounding fees realised
from enforcement challans to the cash
chest."

On the basis of the aforesaid,
learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that as per the procedure the
amount
is
collected
by
the
ARTO
(Enforcement) and as soon as, the said
amount is provided to the Office of the
ARTO
(Administration),
the
same
is
deposited in the Government Treasury.
Since the amount in question has been
recovered from the Almirah of the ARTO
246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Enforcement), therefore, as per the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the said amount
could not have been deposited by the office
of the petitioner. He has further submitted
that the custodian of the said amount at
that point of time was Shri Sanjay Kumar
Tiwari who has also been placed under
suspension on 31.01.2020 and this Court
has passed the interim order on 11.02.2020
staying the suspension order to Shri Sanjay
Kumar Tiwari.

As per learned counsel for the
petitioner, Shri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari while
filing Service Single No. 3922 of 2020 has not
disclosed in the writ petition that at that point
of time he was discharging the functions of
ARTO (Enforcement) and his office was
custodian of amount in question.

Learned counsel for the petitioner
has further submitted that this Court granted
the interim order to Shri Sanjay Kumar
Tiwari on 11.02.2020 on the point that Shri
Tiwari was not serving on the post of ARTO
(Administration) at that point of time.
Further, this Court has observed that the
main culprit was one Tara Chand(Clerk),
who has deposited the entire amount in the
Government Treasury on 04.02.2019 and
there is no loss to the State Exchequer.
Besides the said Tara Chand has been
awarded minor penalty.

Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that since the main culprit Shri
Tara Chand(Clerk) has been awarded a
minor punishment and the amount in
question has already been deposited in public
exchequer, therefore, there is no purpose to
place the petitioner under suspension. The
enquiry may go on and he shall cooperate
with the departmental proceedings.

The matter requires consideration.

Let short counter affidavit be filed
within a period of ten days indicating the fact
as to whether the amount in question has
been received in the office of ARTO
(Enforcement), when the petitioner was
serving on the post of ARTO (Administration)
and if yes, what would be the consequences.

Para 13 of the writ petition shall
be replied categorically.

List this case on 17.03.2020 as
fresh in the additional cause list along with
Service Single No. 3922 of 2020.

If the short counter affidavit as
directed above is not filed within stipulated
time, the interim relief application of the
petitioner may be considered on the next
date."

6. Today when the case was taken up,
it was specifically put to learned counsel
for petitioner in the present writ petition, as
to why the fact that Mr. Sanjay Tiwari was
working as Assistant Regional Transport
Officer (Enforcement) (hereinafter referred
to as "ARTO (E)") at Raebareli since
1.7.2017 till 21.5.2018 was not mentioned
in the writ petition and why it was falsely
stated that he joined at Raebareli only on
22.05.2018. Learned counsel for petitioner
submits that petitioner had joined as ARTO
(A) on 22.05.2018 and the said fact is
stated in the writ petition. He further
submits that by supplementary affidavit
filed thereafter on 17.03.2020, the factual
position was clarified.

7. The court is not satisfied with the
reply of petitioner. The supplementary
affidavit is filed only after another court
had pointed out the misstatements of the
petitioner. Petitioner in his writ petition no
where states that he was already working as
7 All. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
247
ARTO (E) at Raebareli since 1.7.2017 and
worked till 21.5.2018 and on 22.5.2018 he
took charge of the post of ARTO(A), which
was relevant for the purposes of the present
writ petition. Rather Petitioner's writ
petition states otherwise. In paragraph 2 of
the writ petition, petitioner states:

"The impugned suspension order
dated 31.01.2020 has been passed on the
incorrect premise that the petitioner while
working as ARTO (A), Rae Bareli from
23.01.2018
till
07.06.2018,
neither
deposited in the State Treasury nor entered
in the Cash Book/Main Cash Book an
amount of Rs.9,48,049/- (Rupees Nine
Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Forty Nine).
The aforementioned impugned order has
been passed without verifying the veracity
of the facts stated as the petitioner had
joined his duty as ARTO (A) at Rae Bareli
on 22.05.2018 itself and had only served
for 16 days during the alleged period
mentioned in the impugned order."

8. In paragraph 6 and 7 of the writ
petition further stated: "That vide order
dated 18.05.2018 issued by the respondent
No.2 bearing No.95/2018/1768/30-3-1807GI/2018 the petitioner was posted as
Assistant
Regional
Transport
Officer
(Administration) at Rae Bareli, complying
with
the
aforementioned
order
the
petitioner joined as Assistant Regional
Transport Officer (Administration) at Rae
Bareli on 22.05.2018. Copy of the charge
certificate
of
the
petitioner
bearing
No.203/SaPraSha/ARTO/2018
dated
22.05.2018 is being annexed herewith as
Annexure No.2 to this writ petition.

That it is pertinent to mention
here that even before the petitioner was
transferred to Rae Bareli, Cashier/Junior
Clerk at the Regional Transport Office, Rae
Bareli had on multiple occasions committed
grave irregularity of not depositing the
official
cash
in
the
State Treasury.
Apparently, first such irregularity was
committed on 23.01.2018, when one Smt.
Pushpanjali
Mitra
Gautam,
the
predecessor of petitioner was posted as
ARTO (A), Rae Bareli, after which the
Cashier/Junior Clerk namely Sri Tara
Chand failed to deposit the cash in the
State Treasury on seven other instances
before the joining of the petitioner and on
two instances after the joining of the
petitioner."

9. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition
he further stated "It is noteworthy that the
petitioner had only joined his duties at
Rae Bareli on 22.05.2018."

10. Similarly ground B taken in the
writ petition reads:

"B. Because, the allegation of
misappropriation as per the impugned
order is from 23.01.2018 till 11.06.2018.
The petitioner had joined service in Rae
Bareli on 22.05.2018. It is apparent from
above that once the petitioner joined his
duty he put a curb on any such illegal
activities
immediately,
acting
in
his
supervisory capacity. As already mentioned
above, the petitioner also conducted an
inspection
and
caught
the
aforesaid
misappropriation and directed necessary
action as per the rules."

11. Thus in the entire writ petition,
misstatement is made and court is made to
believe that petitioner came to Raebareli
and joined for the first time on 22.05.2018,
concealing the fact that he was already
posted and working at Raebareli as ARTO
(E) since 1.7.2017. Mr. Gaurav Mehrotra,
learned counsel for petitioner now fairly
248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
concedes before this court that prior to his
posting
as
ARTO(A)
petitioner
was
working as ARTO (E) at Raebareli only
since 1.7.2017 and this fact is nowhere
stated in the writ petition. He also could not
dispute that the same is a relevant fact for
the purposes of this case as is noted in the
interim order of the connected writ petition.

12. Even otherwise on merits, I find
that
on
11.06.2018
an
amount
of
Rs.41,200/- along-with an amount of
Rs.36,500/- and on 07.07.2018 an amount
of Rs. 1,30,400/- was collected and not
deposited in the Government Treasury. The
said amounts were collected and not
deposited after the petitioner had taken
charge on the post of ARTO (A) on
22.05.2018. Therefore, complicity of the
petitioner in the misappropriation cannot be
ruled out and can be decided only in a
proper inquiry. There is no explanation in
the entire writ petition with regard to the
said aspect, though the same is specifically
noted in the order dated 13.06.2019
(Annexure-12) to the writ petition and
other documents annexed with the writ
petition.

13. Be that as it may, from the above
this court finds that the petitioner has
purposely concealed relevant facts/made
false statements before this Court. Supreme
Court has deprecated such conducted
repeatedly. Suffice would be to refer to the
case of K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of
India Limited and others (2008) 12 SCC
481. The
said
judgment
takes
into
consideration the earlier long settled law on
this issue at length. The relevant paragraphs
34 to 51 of the said judgment reads :

"34. The jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the
High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and
discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned
therein are issued for doing substantial
justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity
that the petitioner approaching the Writ
Court must come with clean hands, put
forward all the facts before the Court
without concealing or suppressing anything
and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no
candid disclosure of relevant and material
facts or the petitioner is guilty of
misleading the Court, his petition may be
dismissed
at
the
threshold
without
considering the merits of the claim.

35. The underlying object has
been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in
the leading case of R. v. Kensington Income
Tax Commrs1 in the following words:

"... it has been for many years the
rule of the Court, and one which it is of the
greatest importance to maintain, that when
an applicant comes to the Court to obtain
relief on an ex parte statement he should
make a full and fair disclosure of all the
material facts- it says facts, not law. He
must not misstate the law if he can help it-
the Court is supposed to know the law. But
it knows nothing about the facts, and the
applicant must state fully and fairly the
facts; and the penalty by which the Court
enforces that obligation is that if it finds out
that the facts have not been fully and fairly
stated to it, the Court will set aside any
action which it has taken on the faith of the
imperfect statement". (emphasis supplied)

36. A prerogative remedy is not a
matter
of
course.
While
exercising
extraordinary power a Writ Court would
certainly bear in mind the conduct of the
party who invokes the jurisdiction of the
Court. If the applicant makes a false
statement or suppresses material fact or
7 All. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
249
attempts to mislead the Court, the Court
may dismiss the action on that ground
alone and may refuse to enter into the
merits of the case by stating, "We will not
listen to your application because of what
you have done". The rule has been evolved
in
larger
public
interest
to
deter
unscrupulous litigants from abusing the
process of Court by deceiving it.

37. In Kensington Income Tax
Commissioner,
Viscount
Reading,
C.J.
observed: (KB pp. 495-96)

"... Where an ex parte application
has been made to this Court for a rule nisi or
other process, if the Court comes to the
conclusion that the affidavit in support of the
application was not candid and did not fairly
state the facts but stated them in such a way
as to mislead the Court as to the true facts,
the Court ought, for its own protection and to
prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to
proceed any further with the examination of
the merits. This is a power inherent in the
Court, but one which should only be used in
cases which bring conviction to the mind of
the Court that it has been deceived. Before
coming
to
this
conclusion
a
careful
examination will be made of the facts as they
are and as they have been stated in the
applicant's affidavit, and everything will be
heard that can be urged to influence the view
of the Court when it reads the affidavit and
knows the true facts. But if the result of this
examination and hearing is to leave no doubt
that this Court has been deceived, then it will
refuse to hear anything further from the
applicant in a proceeding which has only
been set in motion by means of a misleading
affidavit". (emphasis supplied)

38. The above principles have been
accepted in our legal system also. As per
settled law, the party who invokes the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 32 or of a High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution is supposed to be
truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all
material facts without any reservation even if
they are against him. He cannot be allowed
to play "hide and seek" or to "pick and
choose" the facts he likes to disclose and to
suppress (keep back) or not to disclose
(conceal) other facts. The very basis of the
writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true
and complete (correct) facts. If material facts
are suppressed or distorted, the very
functioning of Writ Courts and exercise
would become impossible. The petitioner
must disclose all the facts having a bearing
on the relief sought without any qualification.
This is because, "the Court knows law but not
facts".

39. If the primary object as
highlighted
in
Kensington
Income
Tax
Commissioners is kept in mind, an applicant
who does not come with candid facts and
"clean breast" cannot hold a writ of the Court
with
"soiled
hands".
Suppression
or
concealment of material facts is not an
advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation,
manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has
no place in equitable and prerogative
jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose
all the material facts fairly and truly but states
them in a distorted manner and misleads the
Court, the Court has inherent power in order to
protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its
process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to
proceed further with the examination of the
case on merits. If the Court does not reject the
petition on that ground, the Court would be
failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant
requires to be dealt with for contempt of Court
for abusing the process of the Court.

40.
Let
us
consider
some
important decisions on the point:
250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

41. In State of Haryana v. Karnal
Distillery Co. Ltd.2 almost an agreed order
was passed by the Court that on expiry of
the licence for manufacturing of liquor on
September 6, 1976, the distillery would
cease to manufacture liquor under the
licence issued in its favour. Then, the
Company filed a petition in the High Court
for renewal of licence for manufacture of
liquor for 1976-77, and the Court granted
stay of dispossession. In appeal, the
Supreme Court set aside the order granting
stay of dispossession on the ground that the
petitioner-Company in filing the petition in
the High Court had misled it and started
the proceedings for oblique and ulterior
motive.

42. In Vijay Kumar Kuthuria v.
State of Haryana3 it was the case of the
petitioners that the provisional admissions
granted to them were not cancelled and
they were continuing their studies as postgraduate students in Medical College on
the relevant date. On the basis of that
statement, they obtained an order of status
quo. The Supreme Court ordered inquiry
and the District Judge was asked to submit
his
report
whether
the
provisional
admissions granted to the petitioners were
continued till October 1, 1982 or were
cancelled. The report revealed that to the
knowledge
of
the
petitioners
their
provisional admissions were cancelled long
before October 1, 1982 and thus, the
petitioners had made false representation
to the Court and obtained a favourable
order.

Dismissing
the
petition,
this
Court observed: (SSC p. 334, para 1):-

"1.
...But
for
the
misrepresentation this Court would never
have passed the said order. By reason of
such
conduct
they
have
disentitled
themselves from getting any relief or
assistance from this Court and the Special
Leave Petitions are liable to be dismissed".

43. Deprecating the reprehensible
conduct of the petitioners as well as of their
counsel, the Court stated: (Vijay Kumar
Kathuria case, SCC pp.334-35, para 3)

"3. Before parting with the case,
however, we cannot help observing that the
conduct or behaviour of the two petitioners
as well as their counsel (Dr. A.K. Kapoor
who happens to be a medico-legal
consultant practising in Courts) is most
reprehensible
and
deserves
to
be
deprecated. The District Judge's report in
that behalf is eloquent and most revealing
as it points out how the two petitioners and
their counsel, (who also gave evidence in
support of the petitioner's case before the
District Judge) have indulged in telling lies
and
making
reckless
allegation
of
fabrication and manipulation of records
against the College Authorities and how in
fact the boot is on their leg. It is a sad
commentary on the scruples of these three
young gentlemen who are on the threshold
of their carriers. In fact, at one stage we
were inclined to refer the District Judge's
report both to the Medical Council as well
as the Bar Council for appropriate action
but we refrained from doing so as the
petitioners' counsel both on behalf of his
clients as well as on his own behalf
tendered unqualified apology and sought
mercy from the Court. We, however, part
with the case with a heavy heart expressing
our strong disapproval of their conduct and
behaviour...." (emphasis supplied)

44. In Welcom Hotel v. State of
A.P.4 certain hoteliers filed a petition in
this Court under Article 32 of the
7 All. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
251
Constitution challenging the maximum
price of foodstuffs fixed by the Government
contending that it was uneconomical and
obtained ex parte stay order. The price,
however, was fixed as per the agreement
between
the
petitioners
and
the
Government
but
the
said
fact
was
suppressed.
Describing
the
fact
as
material, the Court said: (SCC pp. 580-81,
para 7)

"7.
...Petitioners
who
have
behaved in this manner are not entitled to
any consideration at the hands of the
Court".

45. In Agricultural & Processed
Food Products v. Oswal Agro Furane5 the
petitioner filed a petition in the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana which was
pending. Suppressing that fact, it filed
another petition in the High Court of Delhi
and obtained an order in its favour.
Observing that the petitioner was guilty of
suppression of "very important fact", this
Court set aside the order of the High Court.

46. In State of Punjab v. Sarav
Preet6 A obtained relief from the High
Court on her assertion that a test in a
particular subject was not conducted by the
State. In an appeal by the State, it was
stated that not only the requisite test was
conducted but the petitioner appeared in
the said test and failed. Observing that the
petitioner was under an obligation to
disclose the said fact before the High
Court, this Court dismissed the petition.

47. In Union of India v. Muneesh
Suneja7 the detenu challenged an order of
detention under the Conservation of
Foreign Exchange and Prevention of
Smuggling
Activities
Act,
1974
(COFEPOSA) by filing a petition in the
High Court of Delhi which was withdrawn.
Then he filed a similar petition in the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana wherein he did
not disclose the fact as to filing of the
earlier petition and withdrawal thereof and
obtained relief. In an appeal by the Union
of India against the order of the High
Court, this Court observed that nondisclosure of the fact of filing a similar
petition and withdrawal thereof was indeed
fatal to the subsequent petition.
48. A special reference may be made to a
decision of this Court in All India State
Bank Officers Federation v. Union of
India8 In that case, promotion policy of the
Bank was challenged by the Federation by
filing a petition in this Court under Article
32 of the Constitution. It was supported by
an affidavit and the contents were affirmed
by the President of the Federation to be
true to his "personal knowledge". It was
stated: (SSC p.337, para2)

"2. ...The petitioners have not
filed any other similar writ petition in this
Honourable Court or any other High
Court".

In the counter-affidavit filed on
behalf of the Bank, however, it was asserted
that the statement was "false". The
Federation had filed a writ petition in the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh which was
admitted but interim stay was refused.
Another petition was also filed in the High
Court of Karnataka. It was further pointed
out that Promotion Policy was implemented
and 58 officers were promoted who were
not made parties to the petition. In
affidavit-in-rejoinder, once again, the stand
taken by the petitioner was sought to be
justified. It was stated: "The deponent had
no knowledge of the writ petition filed
before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
hence as soon as it came to his knowledge
252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the same has been withdrawn. Secondly,
the petitioners even today do not know the
names of all such 58 candidates who have
been promoted/favoured". It was contended
on behalf of the Bank that even that
statement
was
false.
Not
only
the
petitioner- Federation was aware of the
names of all the 58 officers who had been
promoted to the higher post, but they had
been joined as party- respondents in the
writ petition filed in the Karnataka High
Court, seeking stay of promotion of those
respondents. It was, therefore, submitted
that the petitioner had not come with clean
hands and the petition should be dismissed
on that ground alone.

49. "Strongly disapproving" the
explanation put forth by the petitioner and
describing the tactics adopted by the
Federation as "abuse of process of court",
this Court observed: (All India Stae Bank
Officers Federation Case, SCC pp.340-41,
paras 9 & 11)

"9. ... There is no doubt left in our
minds that the petitioner has not only
suppressed material facts in the petition but
has also tried to abuse judicial process. ...

11. Apart from misstatements in the
affidavits filed before this Court, the petitioner
Federation has clearly resorted to tactics which
can only be described as abuse of the process of
court. The simultaneous filing of writ petitions
in various High Courts on the same issue
though purportedly on behalf of different
associations of the Officers of the Bank, is a
practice which has to be discouraged. Sri
Sachhar and Sri Ramamurthy wished to
pinpoint the necessity and importance of
petitions being filed by different associations in
order
to
discharge
satisfactorily
their
responsibilities
towards
their
respective
members. We are not quite able to appreciate
such necessity where there is no diversity but
only a commonness of interest. All that they had
to do was to join forces and demonstrate their
unity by filing a petition in a Single Court. It
seems the object here in filing different petitions
in different Courts was a totally different and
not very laudable one".
 (emphasis supplied)

50. "Deeply grieved'" by the situation
and adversely commenting on the conduct and
behaviour of the responsible officers of a
Premier Bank of the country, the Court
observed; (All India State Bank Officers
Federation Case, SCC p.342, para 12)

"12. We have set out the facts in this
case at some length and passed a detailed order
because we are deeply grieved to come across
such conduct on the part of an association,
which claims to represent high placed officers
of a premier bank of this country. One expects
such officers to fight their battles fairly and
squarely and not to stoop low to gain, what can
only be, temporary victories by keeping away
material facts from the court. It is common
knowledge that, of late, statements are being
made in petitions and affidavits recklessly and
without proper verification not to speak of
dishonest and deliberate misstatements. We,
therefore, take this opportunity to record our
strong and emphatic disapproval of the conduct
of the petitioners in this ease and hope that this
will be a lesson to the present petitioner as well
as to other litigants and that at least in future
people will act more truthfully and with a
greater sense of responsibility. (emphasis
supplied)

51. Yet in another case in Vijay Syal
v. State of Punjab9 this Court stated: (SCC p.
420, para 24)

"In order to sustain and maintain
sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in
7 All. Hasan Tanveer Iqbal Vs. State Bank of India & Ors.
253
law courts it is necessary that parties
should not make false or knowingly,
inaccurate statements or misrepresentation
and/or should not conceal material facts
with a design to gain some advantage or
benefit at the hands of the court, when a
court is considered as a place where truth
and justice are the solemn pursuits. If any
party attempts to pollute such a place by
adopting
recourse
to
make
misrepresentation
and
is
concealing
material facts it does so at its risk and cost.
Such party must be ready to take
consequences that follow on account of its
own making. At times lenient or liberal or
generous treatment by courts in dealing
with such matters are either mistaken or
lightly taken instead of learning proper
lesson. Hence there is a compelling need to
take serious view in such matters to ensure
expected
purity
and
grace
in
the
administration of justice".

14. In view of the aforesaid well
settled law, looking to the conduct of the
petitioner who is expected to be a
responsible government employee, even
having powers to look after finances on
behalf of State, and has been suspended on
charges
of
financial
irregularity
and
thereafter
approached
this
Court
by
attempting to manoeuvre facts/making false
statement of facts, I find it a fit case to
dismiss the petition with costs.

15. The writ petition is dismissed with
exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/-. The cost is
to be deposited by the petitioner within a
period of one month from today before the
Senior
Registrar,
Lucknow
Bench,
Lucknow.

16. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.
----------
(2020)07ILR A253
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.04.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Writ A No. 40517 of 2005

Hasan Tanveer Iqbal ...Petitioner
Versus
State Bank of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.K. Srivastava, Sri Sumit Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C., Sri Satish Kishore Kakkar

A. Service Law - Bank - Compassionate
Appointment
-
Compassionate
appointment is not a vested right and
cannot be claimed as a matter of course.
It is not an appointment by succession.
The objective of is to provide immediate succour
to the family of deceased employee who was
sole bread-earner and his sudden death in
harness has caused serious financial scarcity
and penury to the family. The purpose of
compassionate appointment is not for providing
a post against post. It is not reservation in
service by virtue of succession. (Para 11, 15,
40)

B. Constitution of India:- Article 14, 16 -
Factors to be examined and looked into to
determine the penurious condition of the
family
of
employee
-
Indigence
of
dependents of deceased employee is first
precondition to bring a case under scheme
of compassionate appointment. If element
of
indigence
and
need
to
provide
immediate
assistance
for
relief
from
financial deprivation, is taken out from
scheme of compassionate appointment, it
would be taken out to be a result in favour
of dependents of an employee who died
while in service, which would be directly