# Satya Prakash Pandey v. Union of India and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 2 ILRA 862
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-07-21
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No.4683 (S/S) of 2010
- **Bench:** Shabihul Hasnain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satya-prakash-pandey-v-union-of-india-and-others-41704
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

862 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

on the basis of affidavits, which was
illegal.

Learned AGA is unable to defend the
impugned order.

A Division Bench of this Court in
Pakhando & others Vs. State of U.P. &
another, 2001 (43) ACC 1096 has held
that :-

(1) He may agreeing with the
conclusions arrived at by the police,
accept
the
report
and
drop
the
proceedings. But before so doing, he shall
give an opportunity of hearing to the
complainant ; or

(2) He may take cognizance under
Section 190 (1) (b) and issue process
straightway to the accused without being
bound
by
the
conclusions
of
the
investigating agency, where he is satisfied
that upon the facts discovered or
unearthed by the police, there is sufficient
ground to proceed ; or

(3)
he
may
order
further
investigation, if he is satisfied that the
investigation was made in a perfunctory
manner ; or

(4) he may, without issuing process
or dropping the proceedings decide to
take cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a)
upon the original complaint or pretest
petition treating the same as complaint
and proceed to act under Sections 200 and
202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter decide whether
complaint should be dismissed or process
should be issued.

6. The Magistrate has not adopted
any of the four courses detailed above but
proceeded to take cognizance on the basis
of affidavits. The cognizance of the
offence cannot be taken on the basis of
affidavits. Either the Magistrate should
have passed the order on the basis of
material present in the case diary or
should have treated protest petition as a
complaint. The course adopted by learned
Magistrate is absolutely illegal. Therefore,
the impugned order cannot be sustained
and is liable to be set aside.

7. The revision is allowed. The
impugned order dated 26th June, 2010
passed by the Magistrate is set aside. The
matter is remanded to the Magistrate with
a direction to decide the fate of final
report and the pretest petition in light of
directions given above.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED LUCKNOW 21.07.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHABIHUL HASNAIN, J.

Writ Petition No.4683 (S/S) of 2010

Satya Prakash Pandey
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondent

Constitution of India Art. 226-Service
law-termination
order-on
ground
of
giving false information-application form
consisting 12 column-requiring 'yes' or
'no'-petitioner
given
incorrect
information as 'no' regarding pendency
of
criminal
case
under
Section
323/504/506 IPC-not amount to moral
turpitude-even
on
verification-police
personal recommended for recruitment
as no other criminal cases pendingpetitioner
a
20
years
young
boy
belonging to rural area-after getting
bail-bonafidely conceived as acquittaltermination order passed very cursory
and routine manner without application
2 All] Satya Prakash Pandey V. Union of India and others
863
of mind deserves to be struck downconsequential directions given.

Held Para 12 and 13

On the basis of the arguments and the
material
on
record,
the
Court
is
convinced that the answer 'No' to the
composite question put in Clause 12 of
the 'Verification Roll' does not amount to
supply
of
false
information
or
suppression
of
material
facts
as
envisaged under Clause -3 of the said
Roll.

The order of termination has been
passed in very cursory and routine
manner.
The
matter
has
not
been
seriously considered from all angles.
There is lack of application of mind
which
can
not
be
appreciated.
It
deserves to be struck down. It has also
been informed that the petitioner was
sent back home despite service of the
interim order of this Court. This is a
serious matter The act touches the
peripheries of contempt. At the moment
no cognizance is being taken of this fact
but it is expected of a senior officer of a
disciplined force to show due respect to
the orders of the Court

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain, J. )

1. Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri I. H.
Farooqui, Assistant Solicitor General of
India for all the opposite parties.

2. This matter was initially heard on
14.7.2010 and an objection regarding
territorial jurisdiction was raised by Sri I. H.
Farooqui. The termination order has been
passed at Narsingarh, Tripura, hence it was
argued on behalf of opposite parties that this
Court does not have territorial jurisdiction
to take cognizance of this matter. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
termination order though has been passed at
Tripura but the written test of the petitioner
was held at Lucknow and he was called for
interview
at
Lucknow.
The
medical
examination was also done at Lucknow and
the appointment letter was issued to the
petitioner by the Deputy Inspector General
of Police, Central Reserve Police Force,
Lucknow.
Moreover,
the
basis
of
termination order is a police verification
from police station Unchahar, DistrictRaibareli in Uttar Pradesh. Lucknow and
Raibareli both are within the jurisdiction of
Lucknow Bench. Dr. Mishra has further
argued that in a case reported in AIR 1976
Supreme Court 331 (Naseeruddin Versus
State Transport Appellate Tribunal) it has
been held that the Courts within whose
jurisdiction part of cause of action has
accrued shall have the jurisdiction to decide
the matter. On all these counts the writ
petition is maintainable at Lucknow.

3. Sri I. H. Farooqui says that he is not
pressing the point of territorial jurisdiction
hence this Court proceeds with the merit of
the case.

4. The facts of the case briefly stated
are that the opposite parties advertised in
news papers for filling up vacancies in the
Central Reserve Police Force. Petitioner
applied and was called for Physical
Examination.
Petitioner
appeared
for
Physical Examination at Lucknow and
cleared the same. The petitioner was
subsequently called for Written Test to be
held at Lucknow on 19.12.2008. The
petitioner appeared in the said written test at
Lucknow and was declared successful vide
result dated 13.01.2009 and was called for
interview at Lucknow on 16.01.2009. The
petitioner appeared in the said interview on
16.01.2009 and was declared successful on
2.2.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared
in the Medical Examination and was
864 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

declared
selected
on
16.2.2009.
Appointment letter was issued to the
petitioner by the Deputy Inspector General
of Police, Central Reserve Police Force,
Lucknow
in
pursuance
whereof
the
petitioner joined on 13.3.2009 on the post of
Constable at Lucknow in the office of
opposite party No.3. The petitioner was sent
for training to Kerala and successfully
completed his training. After completion of
the training, the petitioner was informed
that he was to be posted with the 87th
Battalion stationed at Narsingarh, Tripura
and an officer from the said battalion
arrived and took the petitioner and other
candidates who had successfully completed
the training along with him to the new place
of posting. The petitioner had just joined at
his new place of posting at Narsingarh,
Tripura where he was served with the
impugned notice date 16.6.2010 issued by
the Commandant, 87th Battalion-opposite
party no.4 terminating the services of the
petitioner.

At the time of his appointment, the
petitioner was required to fill up a
'Verification
Roll'
wherein
certain
information was required to be given by the
petitioner about himself. Sri I. H. Farooqui
has produced the original record and the
form filled in by the petitioner is also before
the Court. In column 12 of the said form it
was required that the petitioner may furnish
information as to whether he was arrested or
any case is pending against him in a court of
law. Against both these columns the
petitioner has written 'No'. The sole case for
cancellation of the petitioner's selection is of
verification. It has been found that a case
under Sections 147/323/504 and 506 IPC
were registered as Case Crime No.82 of
2007 at Police Station-Unchahar, DistrictRaibareli.

5. Petitioner's services have been
terminated on the ground that the petitioner
has supplied false information. Notice of
termination was issued on 16.6.2010 to be
effective after the expiry of a period of one
month from the date of the notice. Meaning
thereby that the petitioner's service have
come to an end on 15.7.2010.

Dr. Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioner has argued that the very fact that
the petitioner has stated to have "No"
against column 12 can not be denied as a
matter of fact, but he urges the Court to
consider the effect of the case pending
against the petitioner in the court at
Raibareli. He submits that the petitioner at
the time of filling up the form was 20 years
of age. He comes from a rural background
and the sections under which the case has
been registered are 147/323/504/506 IPC.
The police report shows that there were
twelve persons involved in this petty
offence and the petitioner was granted bail
from the police station itself. Dr. Mishra has
argued that such small offence which did
not include any moral turpitude or any
sinister design on the part of the young
candidate can not be considered as a serious
impediment in his joining the department.
On all the other counts the petitioner has
qualified to be a Constable and except for
this blot there is nothing against the
petitioner to withdraw his selection. The
police verification report has also been
placed before this Court. The In-charge of
the police station has inquired from the
villagers and has found that the petitioner is
of good moral character and there is no
complaint against him in the records. The
Inspector has gone to the extent of writing
that the case pending before the Court can
not be an impediment for joining the
services by the petitioner. The overall
assessment which transpires from the report
2 All] Satya Prakash Pandey V. Union of India and others
865
of the station-in-charge shows that the
petitioner except for that petty offence is
otherwise a good member of the society.

6. Dr. Mishra has further argued that
even if the petitioner had given this
information prior to the verification it would
not have stopped the opposite parties from
allowing him to appear in the examination
and competing with all others.

7. An important question which arises
for consideration is whether the petitioner
who is going to join a disciplined force
should have given correct information
instead of writing 'No'. Sri I. H. Farooqui
has argued that this aspect of the matter is
the sole consideration for terminating the
services of the petitioner.

Dr. Misra, on the other hand, has
argued that the candidate of twenty years of
age with rural background could not
comprehend the real import of the question
put in by the opposite parties in column-12.
He has argued that as the petitioner was
granted bail from the police station itself,
the petitioner thought that the matter has
come to an end. Since he was not convicted
or sent to jail, he could not understand that
he ought to write that any criminal case is
pending against him. The matter was too
trivial in the assessment of the petitioner.
Since the question has been asked in a
composite format about the petitioner being
arrested or sent to jail, convicted or bound
down, a boy of 20 years could not segregate
and give category wise reply for lack of
comprehension. Since the petitioner was
never convicted and never sent to jail he
thought it proper to answer 'No'.

8. This line of argument can not be
readily accepted by the Court but definitely
leaves a mark on the mind. When a series of
questions are asked and one word answer is
required, it often becomes difficult to give a
correct answer. In the present case, it was a
young man who was just beginning his
carrier with a natural nervousness of being
recruited to police force. His excitement
may have forced the petitioner to commit
such a mistake which can not conclusively
be termed as deliberate perjury. It can be
clearly seen that composite questions can
not be answered in 'Yes' or 'No'. In the
present case no separate columns have been
assigned for giving the details. Clause-12 is
reproduced as under:-

"12. (a) Have you ever been arrested,
prosecuted, kept under detention or bound
down/fined or convicted by a court of law
for any offence or debarred/disqualified by
any Public Service Commission from
appearing at its examination/selections or
debarred
from
taking
any
examination/rusticated by any University or
any other education authority/Institution ?:"

Had the columns been arranged in the
following manner:-

"12. (a) Have you ever been

(a) arrested:- Yes No.

(b) prosecuted:- Yes No.

(c) kept under detention :- Yes No.

(d) or bound down/fined:- Yes No.

(e) convicted by a court of law for any
offence:- Yes No.

(f)or debarred/disqualified by any
Public
866 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

Service Commission from appearing at
its examination/selections: - Yes No.

(g) or debarred from taking any
examination/rusticated by any University or
any other education authority/Institution?:
Yes No.

9. It would have been clear and
practicable for the candidate to answer
properly and correctly but when eight
different shades of questions are being
combined in one column and the answer has
to be given in 'Yes' or 'No', naturally, a
young boy of twenty years can not be
expected to write 'Yes' because in the
present case he was not prosecuted nor kept
under detention nor bound down nor fined
nor convicted by a court of law. Hence, his
answer is 'No' to this question can not be
taken as a big offence rendering him totally
ineligible for appointment.

Further the argument of Sri I. H.
Farooqui that in clause-3 of the same
verification roll it has been clearly stated as
under:-

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

10. He says that the petitioner's
services have been terminated under
Clause-3 of the Verification Roll. This
clause can be invoked only when the
opposite parties come to a definite
conclusion that the information is a false
information. The very fact that composite
questions of fact can not be answered in
monosyllable 'Yes' or 'No' renders the
arguments of Sri Farooqui as fallacious. It
can not be accepted.

Apart from the police report from the
Inspector In-charge of the police station
Unchhar, Raibareli, the character certificate
at the level of the Superintendent of Police,
Raibareli has also been obtained which
shows that character of the petitioner is
satisfactory and there is no adverse material
against him. A similar character certificate
has been issued by the Gram Pradhan of
Itaura Bujurg, Raibareli. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has argued that the sole
purpose of police verification is that
whether the candidate is having good moral
character and is involved in any criminal
case of such a nature which can hold him to
be involved in moral turpitude. The offices
of the government department should not be
held by the persons who can not have the
confidence of the people. His character
should be above board. At the same time, it
is also to be seen that stereotype
classifications are not made. For instance, if
a person is involved in a scuffle which
occurred due to sudden cycle accident on
the road or is involved in some kind of
'marpeet' during heated exchange of words
on the spur of the moment. Definitely, these
are instances which may result into an FIR
being lodged and a case being conducted
but eruption of scuffle on the spur of the
moment will not necessarily mean that a
candidate belongs to a group of criminals. It
may also not necessarily mean that the
petitioner does not have a good moral
character.

11. In the world of today when job
opportunities are shrinking, a young lad of
twenty years can hardly be expected to go
an extra mile to inform the authorities about
a case which can get him rejected at the
threshold. If a specific question is not asked
2 All] Prakash Narain and another V. IIIrd Additional District Judge and others
867
he can not be expected to analyze the query
by himself and prepare the answer which is
prejudicial to his interest. Social and
economic pressure on a young boy in
today's society is a reality. The moral values
which are otherwise vanishing can not be
stretched beyond a limit. The virtues and
values in a candidate should be decided on a
practical apparatus. Realities of life can not
be wished away. In the present case, when
the petitioner was neither convicted nor
fined nor bound down nor prosecuted nor
debarred
from
appearing
in
any
examination, his answer to clause 12 as 'No'
can be read as near truth. The Inspector incharge Police Station-Unchahar as well as
the Superintendent of Police of the District
have verified his character as being good,
the certificate of good moral character has
been issued by the Village Pradhan. On
inquiry no adverse material has come out
against him nor any complaint was made to
the police by any of the villagers.

12. On the basis of the arguments and
the material on record, the Court is
convinced that the answer 'No' to the
composite question put in Clause 12 of the
'Verification Roll' does not amount to
supply of false information or suppression
of material facts as envisaged under Clause
-3 of the said Roll.

13. The order of termination has been
passed in very cursory and routine manner.
The
matter
has
not
been
seriously
considered from all angles. There is lack of
application of mind which can not be
appreciated. It deserves to be struck down.
It has also been informed that the petitioner
was sent back home despite service of the
interim order of this Court. This is a serious
matter The act touches the peripheries of
contempt. At the moment no cognizance is
being taken of this fact but it is expected of
a senior officer of a disciplined force to
show due respect to the orders of the Court.

14. Accordingly, the order dated
16.6.2010 resulting into the termination of
the petitioner's services w.e.f. 16.7.20010
passed by Commandant 8th Battalion, as
contained in Annexure-1 to the writ
petition, is set aside. The petitioner shall be
reinstated in service from the date the other
persons of his Batch have been assigned
their job in the department.

15. The writ petition is allowed.

16. No order is passed as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.08.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6260 of 1992

Prakash Narain and another ...Petitioner
Versus
IIIrd Additional District Judge And
others

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.S. Maurya
Sri Kunwal Ravi Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
S.C.
Sri G.N.Verma

U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings
Act,
Section 49-suit for cancellation of sale
deed-on
basis
of
sale
deed
name
initiated-during consolidation operationthe
order
passed
by
consolidation
proceeding be questioned either by civil
or revenue court as per law laid down by
Full Bench in Bismillah Case.