# Satyapal v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 6 ILRA 628
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-20
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 138 of 2021
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar, Rajendra Kumar-Iv
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satyapal-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-50336
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law
-
Appointment
-
Suppression of material information - The
credibility,
and/or,
trustworthiness
of
such an employee who at the initial stage
of the employment, i.e., while submitting
the declaration / verification for a post
made false declaration of having not being
involved in a criminal case. The employer
would be justified in not appointing such
candidate, further, the employer cannot
be compelled to continue/appoint, such
an employee on the post. The candidate /
employee
cannot
claim
appointment,
6 All. Satyapal Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
629
and/or, continue on the post as a matter
of right. (Para 12, 13, 14)

This Court in exercise of its discretionary
jurisdiction u/Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, would not sit in appeal on the discretion
exercised by the employer in not offering
appointment to the petitioner for suppression of
material fact reflecting upon his character and
credibility to the post of Sub-Inspector. (Para
15)

Special appeal dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
jurisdiction in U.S. or India, as the case
may be, trying the custody of minor child
orders to the contrary. However, visitation
rights to father are admissible so that he
may have access to minor child whenever
he would visit India. If the U.S. court
summons the respondent no. 3 with regard
to any legal issue of custody of child, she is
expected to appear before the court as the
child is U.S. citizen by birth, however
expenses of visit of respondent no. 3 along
with the child and her stay in U.S. for
appearing in legal proceedings will be born
by petitioner no. 2 along with travel
expenses incurred by her. The visitation
right is being granted to petitioner no. 2,
father of the child, as follows:-

(i)- whenever petitioner no. 2, Abhishek
Shukla, is available in India, he shall
respondent no. 3 by E-mail, or telephonically
so that she can make the child available for
meeting with the father at a mutual agreed and
comfortable place for meeting between father
and son, either in Greater Noida or in Delhi
between 11:00 am to 5:00 pm on holidays
when his school is closed, or between 5:30 pm
to 7:30 pm on week days.

(ii) when father will be meeting child,
they shall meet without any supervision. They
shall meet and mother or her family members
may appear there but will have sufficient
distance from them so that they may not be
able to over hear the conversation between
father and son and any interference by
respondent no. 3 or her family members will
not be created.

(iii) When petitioner no. 2 in India, he
may have communication/interaction with his
minor son through video call, skype or
whatsapp with the child at about 7:30 pm
(IST) or any other mode online.

35.

While
granting
aforesaid
visitation right to father i.e. petitioner no. 2
is conducive to paramount interest of the
child as interaction with the child by both
parents is necessary and desirable for
emotional and intellectual growth and
grooming of the child. The respondent no.
3 will extend all cooperation to petitioner
no. 2 so that visitation right granted to him
in respect of the child are duly realised and
complied with.

36. Accordingly, present habeas
corpus petition stands dismissed with above
observations and directions.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 628
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J.

Special Appeal No. 138 of 2021

Satyapal ...Appellant
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Ms. Atipriya Gautam, Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A.
Service
Law
-
Appointment
-
Suppression of material information - The
credibility,
and/or,
trustworthiness
of
such an employee who at the initial stage
of the employment, i.e., while submitting
the declaration / verification for a post
made false declaration of having not being
involved in a criminal case. The employer
would be justified in not appointing such
candidate, further, the employer cannot
be compelled to continue/appoint, such
an employee on the post. The candidate /
employee
cannot
claim
appointment,
6 All. Satyapal Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
629
and/or, continue on the post as a matter
of right. (Para 12, 13, 14)

This Court in exercise of its discretionary
jurisdiction u/Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, would not sit in appeal on the discretion
exercised by the employer in not offering
appointment to the petitioner for suppression of
material fact reflecting upon his character and
credibility to the post of Sub-Inspector. (Para
15)

Special appeal dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Avatar Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors., 2016 (8) SCC
471 (Para 6)

2. Satish Chandra Vs U.O.I. & ors., J.T. 2022 (9)
SC 513 (Para 12)

3. Pawan Kumar Vs U.O.I., J.T. 2022 (5) SC 109
(Para 12)

4. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd.
& anr. Vs Anil Kanwariya, J.T. 2021 (9) SC 349
(Para 13)

Present appeal challenges order dated
18.02.2021, passed by an Hon'ble Single
Judge dismissing appellant's writ petition,
seeking direction to the respondents to
send him for training and, thereafter,
appoint him on the post of Sub-Inspector,
pursuant to joint examination 2011.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra,
learned
counsel
for
the
appellant
/
petitioner
and
Sri
Arimardan
Singh
Rajpoot, learned Chief Standing Counsel
for the State.

2. The present intra court appeal is
directed against the order dated 18
February, 2021, passed by the learned
Single Judge, whereby, the petition filed by
the appellant seeking direction to the
respondents to sent him for training and,
thereafter, appoint him on the post of SubInspector, pursuant to joint examination
2011, came to be dismissed on merit, as
well as, on the ground of delay.

3. The second respondent Uttar
Pradesh Police Recruitment & Promotion
Board, Lucknow (For short 'Board'), issued
an advertisement inviting applications for
the post of Sub-Inspector in 2011. The
appellant/petitioner came to be selected for
the
post
of
Sub-Inspector
Platoon
Commander, pursuant to the select list
dated 20 September, 2019, notified by the
second respondent. Thereafter, appellant /
petitioner
appeared
for
medical
examination on 11 November, 2018 and
was declared successful. For document
verification, petitioner filed a notary
affidavit in November, 2018, before the
competent authority, wherein, petitioner did
not disclose the criminal case that was
lodged against the petitioner and that
petitioner faced trial in a criminal case.

4. It appears that respondents nonsuited the petitioner for having suppressed
material information with regard to the
criminal cases, that came to be lodged
against the petitioner in 2011, though in
2012, petitioner came to be acquitted. The
District Magistrate, accordingly, did not
verify the character certificate of the
petitioner. Petitioner came to be tried in
N.C.R. Case No. 3 of 2006, under Sections
323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The case came to
be compromised under Section 320 I.P.C.
by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court
No. 22, Gorakhpur, vide order dated
25.05.2012. In Case Crime No. 1056 of
2010, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506,
452 I.P.C., petitioner came to be acquitted
vide order dated 03.09.2011, by the Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 22, Gorakhpur.
630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. Learned Standing Counsel, on the
direction of the coordinate Bench of this
court has produced the record of the
petitioner and submitted that in the affidavit
dated 08 November 2019, petitioner did not
disclose about the criminal cases which
was earlier lodged against him, though,
specifically asked for..

6. In this backdrop, learned counsel
for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Avatar Singh vs.
Union of India and others1. Paragraph no.
38.4.1 and 38.4.2 reads thus :-

"38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in
which conviction had been recorded, such
as shouting slogans at young age or for a
petty offence which if disclosed would not
have rendered an incumbent unfit for post
in question, the employer may, in its
discretion, ignore such suppression of fact
or false information by condoning the
lapse.
38.4.2 Where conviction has been recorded
in case which is not trivial in nature,
employer may cancel candidature or
terminate services of the employee."

7. It is submitted that since the nature
of the offence was trivial and petitioner was
acquitted, therefore, the cases were not
disclosed on the, bona fide, belief that no
such case on the date of affidavit was
pending against the petitioner.

8. Attention of the Court has been
drawn by learned Standing Counsel to
paragraph 38.10 of Avatar Singh (supra),
wherein, it is mandated that all the
information, which was required is to be
specifically, mentioned / disclosed in the
attestation / verification form. In such
cases, action can be taken on the basis of
suppression
of
submitting
false
information, as to a fact. Paragraph No.
38.10 is extracted :-

38.10. For determining suppression or
false information attestation/verification
form has to be specific, not vague. Only
such information which was required to be
specifically mentioned has to be disclosed.
If information not asked for but is relevant
comes to knowledge of the employer the
same can be considered in an objective
manner while addressing the question of
fitness. However, in such cases action
cannot be taken on basis of suppression or
submitting false information as to a fact
which was not even asked for."

9. Suitability of a candidate for the
post of Sub-Inspector is to be considered by
the employer. In the opinion of an
employer, suppression of criminal cases
and filing of false affidavit, may be taken
adverse to the candidature of the petitioner.

10.

Suppression
of
material
information and making of false statement
in the verification form relating to arrest,
prosecution, conviction etc., has clear
bearing on the character, conduct and
antecedents of the employee and his
services can be terminated. Even where,
employee makes a declaration truthfully
and correctly of a concluded trial court,
employer still has the right to consider his
antecedents and cannot be compelled to
appoint the candidate.

11. Acquittal in a criminal case would
not automatically entitle the incumbent to
appointment and it would be open to the
employer to examine the suitability and
fitness for appointment, each case should
be thoroughly scrutinized by the employer /
authority. More so, in case of recruitment
6 All. Satyapal Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
631
for police Force, since their ability to
inspire public confidence is essential for
the service and scrutiny of the society .

12. The Supreme Court in Satish
Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India and
Ors.2, considered the position of law post
Avatar Singh (supra). The Court noted that
the decision of the employer would depend
upon the facts and circumstances of each
case and the nature of appointment sought
by the candidate. In Pawan Kumar vs.
Union of India3, the appellant therein, had
not disclosed the prosecution in their
attestation form filled by the petitioner. The
appellant was honorably acquitted. The
Supreme Court held as follows :-

"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."

13. Similarly, in Rajasthan Rajya
Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and
another
vs.
Anil
Kanwariya4,
the
appellant therein came to be convicted in
the criminal case under Section 143, 341
and 323 I.P.C., yet the trial court, thought
fit to release him on probation. The court in
paragraph 14 observe as follows :-

"14. The issue / question may be
considered from another angle, from the
employer's point of view. The question is
not about whether an employee was
involved in a dispute of trivial nature and
whether
he
has
been
subsequently
acquitted or not. The question is about the
credibility and / or trustworthiness of such
an employee who at the initial stage of the
employment, i.e., while submitting the
declaration / verification and / or applying
for a post made false declaration and / or
not disclosing and / or suppressing
material fact of having involved in a
criminal case. If the correct facts would
have been disclosed, the employer might
not have appointed him. Then the question
is of TRUST. Therefore, in such a situation,
where the employer feels that an employee
who at the initial stage itself has made a
false statement and / or not disclosed the
material facts and / or suppressed the
material facts and therefore, he cannot be
continued in service because such an
employee cannot be relied upon even in
future, the employer cannot be forced to
continue such an employee. At the cost of
repetition, it is observed and as observed
hereinabove in catena of decision such an
employee cannot claim the appointment
and / or continue to be in service as a
matter of right."

14. In view of the judicial authorities
noted herein above post Avatar Singh
(supra).
The
credibility,
and
/
or,
trustworthiness of such an employee who at
the initial stage of the employment, i.e.,
while
submitting
the
declaration
/
verification
for
a
post
made
false
declaration of having not being involved in
a criminal case. The employer would be
justified in not appointing such candidate,
further, the employer cannot be compelled
to continue / appoint, such an employee on
632 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the post. The candidate / employee cannot
claim appointment, and / or, continue on
the post as a matter of right.

15. This Court in exercise of its
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, would not sit
in appeal on the discretion exercised by the
employer in not offering appointment to the
petitioner for suppression of material fact
reflecting upon his character and credibility
to the post of Sub-Inspector.

16. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are not
inclined to take an opinion different from
that of learned Single Judge.

17. The appeal being devoid of merit,
is accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 632
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, ,J.

Writ-A No. 494 of 2023

Radhika Baghel ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment - Intermediate Education
Act, 1921 - Regulation 103 of Chapter
III - U.P. Government Servants (Dying in
Harness) Rules, 1974 - The denial of
compassionate
appointment
to
the
applicant/petitioner in the instant case
cannot be justified on the ground that
she is a married daughter. Once the St.
itself has come to accept the Division Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of Smt.
Vimla Srivastava (infra) so as to amend the
U.P. Government Servants (Dying in Harness)
Rules, 1974 and later on also vide gazette
notification on behalf of Madhyamik Shiksha
Parishad amended Rregulation 103 of Chapter
III of the Intermediate Education Act, it
would be taken that it was always there to be
the law and so the St. intended to correct
rule/regulation by incorporating a provision to
include married daughter within the meaning
of word 'family' of dependents of deceased
employee looking to the judgment of Division
Bench. It has been admitted at the bar that
the said judgment of Smt. Vimla Srivastava
(infra) still holds the field and SLP preferred
against which was also dismissed. (Para 13,
15)

B. The petitioner in any manner was not
responsible for delay in applying for
compassionate
appointment.
The
petitioner has been pursuing the matter since
the year 2015 itself. Her late father died in
the year 2012 and she came to file writ
petition before this Court as early as in the
year 2014 being Writ-A No. 37939 of 2014
filed on 14.07.2014. In the order passed
by the DISs dated 05.11.2014 he has not
taken the ground of delay, if any, caused
by the present applicant, while rejecting
her claim for compassionate appointment
and instead her claim came to be rejected
only on account of the fact that Regulation
103 of Chapter III of the Intermediate
Education Act did not provide for married
daughter
to
be
included
within
the
definition of 'family' of dependents. While
the petition being Writ-A No. 4553 of 2015
remained
pending
before
this
Court,
against
the
said
order,
the
Vimla
Srivastava's
judgment
(infra)
intervened in which married daughter
was directed to be included and the
relevant provisions not including the
married daughter as the member of
dependent's 'family' of the deceased
was held to be ultra virus.