# Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** WRIT A No. 15355 of 2019
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-19
- **Case number:** WRIT A No. 15355 of 2019
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/santosh-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46306
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

C.S.C.

A. Service - Cancellation of provisional
appointment - Concealment of pendency
of criminal case - As per the guidelines issued
by the Supreme Court, the employer may in its
discretion, ignore suppression of fact or false
information by condoning the lapse in the cases
of trivial nature or in cases where the candidate
was not aware about the pendency at the time
of filling the form, depending upon the
seriousness of crime. (Para 8)
In the present case, the petitioner had
knowledge of the pendency of the criminal case
which he deliberately concealed and the offence
under which he is being proceeded against
cannot be said to be of petty nature. Thus, the
guidelines issued by the Supreme Court would
not apply. (Para 9)

Petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

1206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
entitled for the interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. on the arrears of retiral benefits.

11. Compliance of the aforesaid order
shall be made within a period of three
months from the date of production of
certified copy of the order of this Court,
failing which the petitioner shall be entitled
for the interest at the rate of 12% p.a.

12. The writ petition is accordingly
allowed.

13. No order as to costs.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1206
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.

WRIT A No. 15355 of 2019

Santosh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Birendra Singh, Sri Syed Irfan Ali

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service - Cancellation of provisional
appointment - Concealment of pendency
of criminal case - As per the guidelines issued
by the Supreme Court, the employer may in its
discretion, ignore suppression of fact or false
information by condoning the lapse in the cases
of trivial nature or in cases where the candidate
was not aware about the pendency at the time
of filling the form, depending upon the
seriousness of crime. (Para 8)
In the present case, the petitioner had
knowledge of the pendency of the criminal case
which he deliberately concealed and the offence
under which he is being proceeded against
cannot be said to be of petty nature. Thus, the
guidelines issued by the Supreme Court would
not apply. (Para 9)

Petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Avtar Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors., 2016 (8) SCC
471 (Para 2)

Petition against orders dated 03.06.2019
and
12.09.2019,
passed
by
District
Development Officer.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar
Gupta, J.

1. The petitioner has called in
question the order dated 3.6.2019 passed by
District Development Officer, the seventh
respondent
cancelling
the
provisional
appointment
of
the
petitioner
dated
15.12.2018 and the order dated 12.9.2019
rejecting the representation of the petitioner
made in pursuance of order of this Court
dated 9.7.2019 in Writ-A No.9601 of 2019.

2. The petitioner was selected for the
post of Village Development Officer (Gram
Vikas
Adhikari).
He
was
given
a
provisional appointment by order dated
10.10.2018. On
that day
itself,
the
petitioner gave a written undertaking in
shape of an affidavit that no criminal case
was pending against him and if the
information furnished in this regard is later
found to be incorrect, it shall be open to the
authorities to cancel his appointment and
also take other legal measures. During
verification
of
his
antecedents
and
character,
it
was
reported
by
Superintendent of Police that Crime Case
No.56A/2011 u/s 147, 148, 149, 379, 323,
504, 506, 427 IPC P.S. Dullahpur, district
Ghazipur was pending against him. He was
3-5 All. Santosh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1207
issued
a
show
cause
notice
dated
11.12.2018 calling for his explanation with
regard to concealment about pendency of
criminal case. In response to the said
notice,
the
petitioner
submitted
his
explanation stating that on 10.10.2018, he
initially affirmed an affidavit in which he
disclosed about pendency of the criminal
case. However, the District Development
Officer refused to accept the said affidavit
stating that it was not in prescribed format.
The petitioner was compelled to submit
another affidavit on prescribed proforma
and in which certain incorrect facts were
mentioned before hand including the fact
that no criminal matter is pending against
him. It was on account of said act of the
respondents that he could not disclose
about the pendency of criminal case in the
affidavit submitted by him on 10.10.2018
in prescribed proforma. The petitioner,
alongwith his explanation, enclosed the
original affidavit dated 10.10.2018, which,
according to him, he tried to submit
initially, but was not accepted. The seventh
respondent,
after
considering
the
explanation of the petitioner, by order dated
3.6.2019, rejected the same holding that (a)
the attestation documents at serial no.10 Ka
and Kha attached with the Application
Form dated 6.4.2018 mentions 'No' against
the column seeking information about
pendency of criminal cases, which is
palpably false; (b) again, after selection,
when the petitioner was given provisional
appointment, he was required to submit an
affidavit by way of a declaration that no
criminal proceedings are pending against
him and regarding other antecedents. In the
said affidavit, the petitioner categorically
mentioned that no criminal matter is
pending against him. However, upon police
verification, it transpired that the said
declaration is false as a criminal case was
pending against him; (c) the affidavit on
which reliance was placed by the petitioner
in his explanation, upon verification from
Public Notary before whom it purports to
be sworn, was found to be a result of
forgery. Aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner filed Writ-A No.9601 of 2019,
which was disposed of by this Court by
order
dated
9.7.2019
permitting
the
petitioner to place all relevant material
before the authority and who would
consider the same in the light of law laid
down by the Supreme Court in Avtar
Singh Vs. Union of India and others,
2016 (8) SCC 471. In compliance of the
said direction, the seventh respondent has
now passed the impugned order dated
12.9.2019. While passing the said order,
the seventh respondent has specifically
considered the guidelines issued by the
Supureme Court in paragraph 38 of the
judgement in Avtar Singh's case (supra)
and thereafter held that it was a case of
deliberate concealment of material facts.
Even a charge sheet was submitted in the
said criminal case on 18.4.2011, much
before the petitioner had filed application
form for selection. The action taken against
him is in consonance with the conditions of
appointment wherein it was specifically
provided that in case any thing is found
incorrect in the declaration furnished, the
appointment would be cancelled.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that (a) the petitioner was not
aware of the pendency of the criminal case,
as pairvi of the said case was being done by
his brother Sanjeev, with whom, his
relationship was strained; (b) the petitioner
being not aware of the pendency of the
criminal case was entitled to benefit of the
guidelines laid down in paragraph 38.8 and
38.4.1; (c) in the original affidavit got
prepared by the petitioner on 10.10.2018,
he duly mentioned about pendency of
1208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
criminal case pending against him, but
which affidavit was not accepted by the
seventh respondent. The petitioner was
coerced to make declaration in the
prescribed format. The submission is that
since it was prepared before hand,
therefore, the petitioner could not alter it
nor mention about pendency of the criminal
case; and (d) the incident was of a trivial
nature;
there
were
cross
FIRs
and
consequently, a lenient view should have
been taken.

4. Learned standing counsel, on the
other hand, submitted that the petitioner is
guilty of concealment of material facts. In
fact, he tried to deceive the respondents in
giving him appointment by deliberately
suppressing the factum of pendency of
criminal case against him. The offence is
not of trivial nature, therefore, no sympathy
could be shown to such a person.

5. The submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioner are palpably
inconsistent with each other. While on one
hand it is urged that the petitioner was not
aware of the pendency of the criminal case,
as his brother was doing pairavi in the said
matter and he was informed by the counsel
that criminal proceedings were no more
pending, but on the other hand, it is sought
to be contended that in one of the affidavits
affirmed by the petitioner on 10.10.2018,
but which was not accepted by the seventh
respondent on the pretext that it was not on
prescribed proforma, he duly mentioned
about the pendency of the said criminal
case. This itself is sufficient to reject the
submissions made in this regard by learned
counsel for the petitioner.

6. The affidavit allegedly got prepared
by the petitioner on 10.10.2018, which
according to him, was not accepted by the
seventh
respondent,
mentions
about
pendency of Crime Case No.56A/2011 u/s
147, 148, 149, 379, 504, 506, 427 IPC P.S.
Dullahpur, district Ghazipur in the Court of
Third Sessions Judge, Ghazipur. The
affidavit
actually
submitted
by
the
petitioner
before
the
authorities
in
paragraph 1 states that no criminal case is
pending
against
the
petitioner.
The
petitioner had also given an undertaking
that in case the declaration is found to be
false, it shall be open to the respondents to
cancel his appointment and to take other
legal proceedings as may be warranted. In
the reply submitted by the petitioner in
response to show cause notice, he took the
stand that he never wanted to conceal any
fact from the authorities. The affidavit on
prescribed proforma contained certain
incorrect information and under pressure he
had to file it. The plea is on the face of it
unacceptable. A perusal of the affidavit,
which was filed by the petitioner before the
authorities, reveals that the said affidavit
was typed on a stamp paper. The name of
the petitioner as well as of his father and
his address are in same font as the
remaining part of the affidavit. It is not the
case of the petitioner that he had simply
filled his name on any printed form made
available to him on that date. The defence
set up is wholly preposterous and bereft of
any logic. It is interesting to note that the
petitioner submitted another reply on
4.1.2019, which makes his case still worse.
In the said reply, he alleged that the
proforma supplied to him did not contain
any column relating to pendency of
criminal proceedings, on account of which
information in this regard could not be
furnished, while as noted above, in the
affidavit filed by him, he stated in very first
paragraph that no criminal case was
pending against him and if the information
furnished in this regard is found to be
3-5 All. Santosh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1209
incorrect, the authorities shall be free to
cancel his appointment.

7.

It
is
noteworthy
that
the
respondents sent copy of both the affidavits
for verification to the Notary Sri Ambika
Singh Yadav Advocate, before whom the
affidavits purport to have been affirmed.
Sri Ambika Singh Yadav vide his letter
dated 15.2.2019 informed the respondents
that the affidavit dated 10.10.2018, which
is written over stamp No.56 AD 276687 (in
prescribed format) was duly affirmed
before him and is entered at serial no.367 in
his register. The other affidavit which the
petitioner claimed that it was not accepted,
affirmed on stamp No.62 AD 802509,
according to the Notary, did not bear his
signature nor his stamp. In other words, the
stamp and signature of the Notary on the
said affidavit was a result of forgery.
Learned counsel for the petitioner did not
even attempt to assail the said finding in
the order dated 3.6.2019.

8. The petitioner was well aware of the
fact at the time of submitting application form
and also when he gave affidavit regarding his
character and antecedents that in case of
suppression of any material fact or furnishing of
wrong information, the appointment was liable
to be cancelled. In such view of the matter, the
irresistible conclusion is that the petitioner had
deliberately suppressed correct information
from the respondents and had rather furnished
incorrect information with a deliberate attempt
to procure appointment which otherwise would
not have been given to him. The guidelines
issued by the Supreme Court in paragraph
38.4.1 and 38.8, upon which reliance has been
placed by learned counsel for the petitioner, are
as follows:-

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.

38.8. 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."

9. I have gone through the First
Information Report which was filed against
the petitioner and 9 other persons. The
incident was in respect of certain dispute
with the rival group of villagers in
connection with making of rasta over sahan
land. In the said incident, one Ram Janam
S/o Kumar received grievous injuries to
which he ultimately succumbed. There is
also cross FIR from the side of the
petitioner by his cousin brother. The Police,
after investigation, has submitted a charge
sheet against the petitioner and other coaccused persons and the trial is continuing
on basis of charge sheet dated 18.4.2011.
The incident was not of such nature that the
petitioner may have forgotten the same nor
trivial which could be ignored from
consideration. The guideline issued by the
Supreme Court in paragraph 38.4.1 would
thus not apply. So far as the guideline laid
down in paragraph 38.8, the same also
would not apply as it is applicable only in
respect of a candidate, who at the time of
filling of the form, was not aware of the
pendency of the criminal case and the
Appointing Authority, after considering the
seriousness of the crime, comes to the
conclusion that the same will have no
adverse impact. In the instant case, as noted
above, the Appointing Authority has
returned a clear cut finding that the
1210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner had knowledge of the pendency
of the criminal case which he deliberately
concealed. The offence under which the
petitioner is being proceeded against cannot
be said to be of petty nature so as to extend
the benefit of guidelines laid down in this
regard.The Appointing Authority having
considered the entire aspect and finding the
petitioner not fit for job in view of his
dishonest and dubious conduct, hardly any
scope is left for this Court to come to the
rescue of the petitioner.

10. Before parting, the Court is
constrained to note that large number of
such cases are coming before the Court
where appointments are being cancelled on
ground
of
furnishing
of
incorrect
information by the candidates. The growing
tendency in young people to procure
appointment even at the cost of furnishing
wrong information is really a disturbing
trend. The Court is sanguine that deliberate
misstatement and concealment would be
eschewed. Even Courts would then only be
able to come to their rescue.

11. The petition lacks merit and
dismissed with a cost of Rs.25000/-.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1210
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.11.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

WRIT A No. 16933 of 1999

Smt. Archana Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.K. Srivastava, Sri U.N. Khare
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri H.N. Sharma, Sri Anirudha
Sharma

A. Service - Appointment/Recruitment -
Procedural illegality/Favoritism - Petitioner
protesting
against
the
candidature
of
respondent no. 3, filed the present writ petition
before the result was declared. On 21.04.1999,
any appointment made was made subject to
the decision of the writ petition and later on
04.04.2001, the appointment of respondent
no. 3 on the post of Clerk by District Magistrate
was stayed. (Para 3, 9)

The Court observed that the application of
respondent-3 originally was submitted for
the post of Assistant Accountant and since
he did not possess requisite qualification, his
candidature was rejected but subsequently
manipulations were done in the application
form and same was accepted for post of
Junior Clerk. (Para 23 to 26)

After expiry of last date, no indulgence
can
be
granted
to
entertain
an
application or document of a candidate
who has come thereafter - In the present
case, respondent-3 has been allowed to
participate for recruitment on the post of
Junior Clerk by District Magistrate, passing
order on 11.12.1998, though that is much
after date
of expiry
of
last date
of
submission of application form. This was
clearly illegal and shows that appointment of
respondent-3 was not fair but in collusion
with the then District Magistrate. It is
vitiated in law on account of favoritism and
procedural illegality committed by concerned
authority. (Para 27, 28)

Since appointment of respondent-3 was
already made subject to result of writ petition
and subsequently it was also stayed, the mere
fact
that
after
filing
of
writ
petition,
respondent-3 was appointed would make no
difference. Appointment of respondent no. 3
is declared illegal and set aside. (Para 29)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent
followed: