# Satyendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 893
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-09
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 16791 of 2023
- **Bench:** Manjive Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satyendra-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51506
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Post of Stenographer -
Appointment
-
Cancellation
of
candidature - Suppression of pendency of
criminal case - Effect - Defence of fault of
operator of Cyber café was taken -
Permissibility - Avtar Singh's case relied
upon - Held, once there is suppression/
concealment of pending criminal cases
against the candidate, then the employer
can
cancel
his
candidature
for
the
appointment - Petitioner is an educated
youth and is seeking appointment on the
post of Stenographer Grade III in the Civil
Court therefore, it is expected from him
that he will fill up the application form and
will personally re-check all the entries
made therein. (Para 22 and 27)

B. Service Law - Post of Stenographer -
Cancellation of candidature - Suppression
of pendency of criminal case - Subsequent
acquittal, how far dilute the fault of
suppression
-
Held,
once
in
the
application form a candidate is required to
disclose the pending criminal case and if
the said fact is suppressed/concealed,
merely because at subsequent stage
894 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
candidate has been acquitted in the
criminal case, that will not dilute the
suppression/concealment
of
material
facts as the same has direct bearing on
the character, conduct and antecedents of
the candidate. (Para 28)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,568 of 43,857. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39568 for what follows._

2 All. Satyendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
893
petitioners and it could not be ignored that
petitioners were in probation period.

18. In aforesaid circumstances,
there is no dispute that petitioners
were illegally benefited and this Court
has verified the said fact from perusal
of record produced before Court
during hearing. Petitioners have also
not been able to dispute that they were
granted more marks than their merit
so
that
they
could
qualify
examination, otherwise according to
their actual marks they could not get
appointment.
Less
meritorious
candidates are not allowed to continue
in service at the cost of meritorious
candidates and in order to maintain
fairness, the procedure adopted by
respondents could not be said to be
illegal. There is no allegation of any
impurity in process of rechecking. As
referred
above,
First
Information
Reports were lodged. Outcome of
investigation
is
not
on
record.
Complicity of petitioners is also
required to be investigated since they
were the beneficiaries of fraud.

19.

The
impleadment
applications are rejected since it is
informed that the persons seeking
impleadment
are
facing
criminal
proceedings and it is on record that a
First Information Report has already
been lodged against them and possibly
investigation may also be completed.

20.

The
writ
petitions
are
accordingly dismissed. A cost of Rs.
5000/- is fixed for each petitioners to
be paid within four weeks from today
in
favour
of
High
Court
Legal
Services
Committee
and
receipt
thereof shall be placed on record.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 893
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ - A No. 16791 of 2023

Satyendra Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Siddharth Khare, Sri Ashok Khare (Sr.
Advocate), Sri Himanshu Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ashish Mishra, Ms. Bushra
Maryam

A. Service Law - Post of Stenographer -
Appointment
-
Cancellation
of
candidature - Suppression of pendency of
criminal case - Effect - Defence of fault of
operator of Cyber café was taken -
Permissibility - Avtar Singh's case relied
upon - Held, once there is suppression/
concealment of pending criminal cases
against the candidate, then the employer
can
cancel
his
candidature
for
the
appointment - Petitioner is an educated
youth and is seeking appointment on the
post of Stenographer Grade III in the Civil
Court therefore, it is expected from him
that he will fill up the application form and
will personally re-check all the entries
made therein. (Para 22 and 27)

B. Service Law - Post of Stenographer -
Cancellation of candidature - Suppression
of pendency of criminal case - Subsequent
acquittal, how far dilute the fault of
suppression
-
Held,
once
in
the
application form a candidate is required to
disclose the pending criminal case and if
the said fact is suppressed/concealed,
merely because at subsequent stage
894 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
candidate has been acquitted in the
criminal case, that will not dilute the
suppression/concealment
of
material
facts as the same has direct bearing on
the character, conduct and antecedents of
the candidate. (Para 28)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

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

2. Satish Chandra Yadav Vs U.O.I.& ors.; (2023)
7 SCC 536

3. St. of M. P.& ors.Vs Bhupendra Yadav; AIR
2023 SC 4553

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Himanshu
Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner,
learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the Respondent No.1 and Ms.
Bushra Maryam, learned counsel appearing
for the Respondents No.2 and 3.

2. Petitioner through this writ petition
has assailed the order dated 11.8.2023
passed by the Chairman, Documents
Verification
Committee/Special
Judge
(SC/ST Act), Prayagraj, whereby his
candidature for the post of Stenographer
Grade III has been cancelled on the ground
that at the time of submission of application
for
appointment,
he
had
suppressed/concealed material information
relating to pendency of a criminal case
against him.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that
an advertisement was issued for the Uttar
Pradesh Civil Court Staff Centralized
Recruitment 2022-23, whereby applications
were invited from eligible candidates for
appointment on the posts of Stenographer
Grade
III.
Petitioner
submitted
his
application in prescribed proforma for
appointment on the post of Stenographer
Grade III and in the said application,
against the columns where candidate was
required to give information regarding
pending criminal cases, he has written
'No'.

4. The final result of the selection for
the post of Stenographer Grade III was
declared on 16.5.2023 and petitioner was
declared
successful.
Petitioner
after
declaration of aforesaid result submitted a
notarial affidavit on 26.5.2023, whereby he
disclosed that a criminal case registered as
Case Crime No.143 of 2019, under
Sections 498A, 354 IPC and Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibtion Act is pending against
him. After submission of the aforesaid
affidavit by the petitioner, a show cause
notice was issued by the Chairman,
Documents Verification Committee/Special
Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj, whereby
petitioner was required to submit his
explanation as to why he has concealed the
information relating to pendency of a
criminal case against him, at the time of
submission of application form.

5. Petitioner submitted his reply to
the aforesaid show cause notice dated
7.6.2023, on 12.6.2023, wherein he has
admitted that a criminal case was pending
on the date of submission of application
form for appointment on the post of
Stenographer Garde III but since his form
was filled in by the operator of a cyber
cafe, as such he has written 'No' against
the column, where petitioner was required
to disclose the criminal cases pending
against him therefore, non disclosure of
pending criminal case cannot be treated as
deliberate suppression of the material facts
2 All. Satyendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
895
and further, the said mistake may be
condoned by treating it to be a clerical
error.
The
Chairman,
Documents
Verification
Committee/Special
Judge
(SC/ST Act), Prayagraj has considered the
reply submitted by the petitioner and has
passed the order on 11.8.2023, wherein
finding has been recorded that petitioner
while submitting application form for
appointment on the post of Stenographer
Grade
III
has
deliberately
suppressed/concealed the facts regarding
pendency of criminal case against him.
Further finding has been recorded that the
post of Stenographer Grade III of the Civil
Court is a sensitive post and on the said
post
the
person
who
has
suppressed/concealed
facts
regarding
pendency of criminal case against him
cannot be appointed. The Chairman,
Documents Verification Committee/Special
Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj vide his
order dated 11.8.2023 has cancelled the
candidature of the petitioner.

6. Learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioner has submitted
that since application form submitted by
the petitioner was filled in by the operator
of a cyber cafe therefore, inadvertently he
had written 'No' against the columns under
which petitioner was required to make
disclosure about the pending criminal cases
therefore,
petitioner
cannot
be
held
responsible
for
deliberate
suppression/concealment of facts regarding
pendency of criminal case. It has further
been submitted that subsequently petitioner
himself has filed an affidavit on 26.5.2023,
whereby information regarding pending
criminal
case
was
provided
to
the
competent authority therefore, petitioner
cannot be held guilty for non-disclosure of
the facts relating to pendency of a criminal
case.

7.

Learned
Senior
Advocate
appearing for the petitioner has drawn
attention of this court towards the fact that
the criminal case which was pending
against the petitioner on the date of
submission
of
application
form
for
appointment on the post of Stenographer
Grade III has been concluded and petitioner
has been acquitted from all the charges vide
judgment and order dated 5.6.2023 passed
by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3,
Prayagraj in Case No.1946 of 2021.

8. Learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioner has cited a
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs.
Union of India and others, 2016 (8) SCC
471 and has submitted that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the said judgment has
categorically held that in the cases of
suppression/concealment of material facts
regarding pending criminal cases, employer
has to consider the facts of the case as to
whether charges in the criminal case which
has not been disclosed by the candidate are
so serious that he cannot be appointed on
the post in question or he cannot be
allowed to continue in service and in the
present case, petitioner was tried for a
trivial offence and since he has been
acquitted from the charges, the order
passed
by
the
employer
by
which
petitioner's candidature has been cancelled,
cannot sustain in the eyes of law.

9.

Learned
Senior
Advocate
appearing for the petitioner has vehemently
argued that in view of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Avtar Singh (supra), the competent
authority must have considered that the
charges levelled against the petitioner in
the criminal case were trivial and further,
he has been acquitted in the criminal case
896 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
therefore, looking into the career and future
prospects of the petitioner, the employer
should not have cancelled his candidature,
whereas in most arbitrary manner, without
considering the relevant facts of the case,
petitioner's candidature has been cancelled
vide order dated 11.8.2023 as such, the said
order cannot sustain in the eyes of law.

10.

Learned
Senior
Advocate
appearing for the petitioner has also argued
that once after selection of the petitioner for
appointment on the post of Stenographer
Grade III petitioner himself has submitted
an affidavit and has disclosed that a
criminal case was pending against him and
further he has been acquitted in the said
criminal case, the employer would not have
cancelled petitioner's candidature but in
most arbitrary manner, his candidature has
been cancelled vide order dated 11.8.2023.
It has further been argued that the post of
Stenographer is not such a sensitive post
where a person against whom a trivial
criminal charge was levelled and later on
he has been acquitted from the said charge,
cannot be appointed therefore, the order
dated 11.8.2023, which is impugned in this
writ petition, is absolutely arbitrary and
reflects total non-application of mind as
relevant factors as required under the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in the case of Avtar Singh
(supra) have not been considered.

11.

Learned
Senior
Advocate
appearing for the petitioner has thus
concluded his arguments and has submitted
that keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case and law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Avtar Singh (supra), the order
dated 11.8.2023 passed by the Chairman,
Documents Verification Committee/Special
Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj cannot
sustain in the eyes of law accordingly, the
writ petition is liable to be allowed by this
court.

12. Per contra, Ms. Bushra Maryam,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
Respondents No.2 and 3 has submitted that
in the application form to be filled in by the
candidates for selection on the post of
Stenographer Grade III, there was specific
requirement for the candidates to disclose
the pending criminal cases but petitioner
while filling up his application form has
written 'No' against the columns where he
was required to disclose pending criminal
cases therefore, it is apparent that the
petitioner has suppressed/concealed the
material facts, accordingly he is not entitled
for
appointment
on
the
post
of
Stenographer Grade III.

13. Learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents No.2 and 3 has further
submitted
that
petitioner
is
seeking
appointment on the post of Stenographer in
the Civil Court, therefore the story set out
by the petitioner that his application form
was filled in by the operator of a cyber cafe
cannot be believed as he is an educated
person as such, it is expected from him that
he must have seen each and every
information given in his application form.

14. Learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents No.2 and 3 has vehemently
argued that suppression of the material
facts regarding pending criminal cases by a
candidate
seeking
appointment
on
a
particular post raises serious doubt on his
character
and
therefore,
once
it
is
established
that
there
is
suppression/concealment
regarding
pending criminal case, the employer has
every right to cancel the candidature of the
said candidate or to terminate services of an
2 All. Satyendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
897
employee. It has further been argued that
the competent authority issued a show
cause notice to the petitioner whereby he
was required to submit his reply and
thereafter, reply submitted by the petitioner
has
duly
been
considered
and
the
competent authority has found that once
petitioner
has
deliberately
suppressed/concealed the facts relating to
pending criminal case against him at the
time of submission of application form, he
is not fit to be appointed on the post of
Stenographer Grade III in the Civil Court
as the work in the courts attaches higher
degree of trust and responsibility.

15. Learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents No.2 and 3 has also argued
that petitioner has filed an affidavit after his
selection for appointment on the post of
Stenographer Grade III, wherein he has
disclosed
the
pending
criminal
case
therefore, it is apparent that petitioner at the
time of submission of application form
deliberately
suppressed/concealed
the
material facts and has not disclosed about
pending criminal case.

16. Learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents
No.2
and
3
has
cited
judgments
rendered
by
the
Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Satish
Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India and
others, (2023) 7 SCC 536 and State of
Madhya
Pradesh
and
others
Vs.
Bhupendra Yadav, AIR 2023 SC 4553
and has argued that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court
in
the
said
judgments
has
categorically
held
that
suppression/concealment of facts relating
to pendency of criminal cases by a
candidate itself is sufficient for cancellation
of his candidature or terminating services
of an employee as the person who at the
time of filling up application form has not
disclosed the pending criminal cases,
cannot be allowed to work on a sensitive
post as non-disclosure raises serious doubt
on his character therefore, the employer has
every right to deny appointment to the said
candidate.

17. Learned counsel appearing for
the Respondents No.2 and 3 has thus
concluded her arguments and has submitted
that since petitioner deliberately has not
disclosed the pending criminal case as
such, the order dated 11.8.2023 passed by
the
competent
authority,
whereby
petitioner's candidature has been cancelled,
does not warrant interference by this court
and the writ petition filed by the petitioner
is liable to be dismissed.

18. I have considered the rival
submissions advanced by the learned
counsels appearing for the parties and I find
that in the application form meant for
appointment on the post of Stenographer
Grade III, candidate was required to
disclose the pending criminal cases against
him but the petitioner, while filling up the
said relevant columns of the application
form, has written 'No', whereas it is
admitted case of the petitioner that on the
date of submission of application form,
criminal case being Case Crime No.143 of
2019, registered under Sections 498A, 354
IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act, was pending. The relevant portion of
the application form submitted by the
petitioner is extracted as under:-

Criminal Proceeding

Have
you
ever
been
tried,
convicted or acquitted by Court of
law?

No
Whether any criminal complaint No
898 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case have ever been registered
against you?

19. This court finds that result of the
selection in question was declared on
16.5.2023
and
thereafter
proceedings
relating to police verification of the
selected candidates started. At that point of
time, petitioner realized that he had not
disclosed criminal case pending against
him therefore, he submitted a notarial
affidavit on 26.5.2023, wherein for the first
time he disclosed the criminal case pending
against him. From the facts of the case, it is
apparent that petitioner has deliberately
suppressed/concealed the criminal case
pending against him. Petitioner is an
educated person therefore, this story cannot
be believed that application form of the
petitioner was filled in by the operator of a
cyber cafe and he has written 'No' in front
of the questions relating to the pending
criminal cases.

20. Now, this court proceeds to
consider the issue as to whether on the
ground of suppression/concealment of
pending criminal case, candidature of a
selected candidate for appointment on a
post can be cancelled.

21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
its judgment rendered in the case of Avtar
Singh (supra) has considered the law laid
down in different judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court regarding the issue as to
where
the
candidate
has
suppressed/concealed the pending criminal
case or has disclosed that he has been
convicted in a criminal case, what course is
available with the employer to take a
decision
either
for
cancellation
of
candidature of a selected candidate or to
offer him appointment. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court after summarizing the
entire law on the issue has given its
conclusion in paragraph 30. Paragraph 30
of the judgment rendered in the case of
Avtar Singh (supra) is extracted as
under:-

30. We have noticed various
decisions and tried to explain and reconcile
them as far as possible. In view of
aforesaid discussion, we summarize our
conclusion thus:

(1) Information given to the
employer by a candidate as to conviction,
acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a
criminal case, whether before or after
entering into service must be true and there
should be no suppression or false mention
of required information.

(2) While passing order of
termination of services or cancellation of
candidature for giving false information,
the employer may take notice of special
circumstances of the case, if any, while
giving such information.

(3) The employer shall take into
consideration
the
Government
orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the
employee, at the time of taking the decision.

(4) In case there is suppression or
false information of involvement in a
criminal case where conviction or acquittal
had already been recorded before filling of
the application/verification form and such
fact later comes to knowledge of employer,
any of the following recourse appropriate
to the case may be adopted : -

(a) 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
2 All. Satyendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
899
or false information by condoning the
lapse.

(b) Where conviction has been
recorded in case which is not trivial in
nature, employer may cancel candidature
or terminate services of the employee.

(c) If acquittal had already been
recorded in a case involving moral
turpitude or offence of heinous/serious
nature, on technical ground and it is not a
case of clean acquittal, or benefit of
reasonable doubt has been given, the
employer may consider all relevant facts
available as to antecedents, and may take
appropriate decision as to the continuance
of the employee.

(5) In a case where the employee
has made declaration truthfully of a
concluded criminal case, the employer still
has the right to consider antecedents, and
cannot be compelled to appoint the
candidate.

(6) In case when fact has been
truthfully declared in character verification
form regarding pendency of a criminal
case of trivial nature, employer, in facts
and circumstances of the case, in its
discretion may appoint the candidate
subject to decision of such case.

(7) In a case of deliberate
suppression of fact with respect to
multiple
pending
cases
such
false
information
by
itself
will
assume
significance and an employer may pass
appropriate
order
cancelling
candidature or terminating services as
appointment of a person against whom
multiple criminal cases were pending
may not be proper.

(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) In case the employee is
confirmed in service, holding Departmental
enquiry would be necessary before passing
order of termination/removal or dismissal
on the ground of suppression or submitting
false information in verification form.

(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.

(11) Before a person is held
guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi,
knowledge of the fact must be attributable
to him.

22. This court finds that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in
the case of Avtar Singh (supra) has held
that information given to the employer by a
candidate as to conviction, acquittal or
arrest, or pendency of a criminal case
whether before or after entering into
service must be true and there should be no
suppression or false mention of required
information. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
has further held that once there is
suppression/concealment
of
pending
criminal cases against the candidate, then
the employer can cancel his candidature for
the appointment.

23. The judgment rendered in the case
of
Avtar
Singh
(supra)
has
been
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in its judgment rendered in the case of
Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of
900 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
India, (2023) 7 SCC 536, wherein after
considering the entire law on the issue, it
has been held that suppression of material
information and making a false statement
in the application form relating to arrest,
prosecution, conviction etc. has a clear
bearing on the character, conduct and
antecedents of the employee. It has further
been held that if it is found that employee
has suppressed or given false information
in regard to the matters having a bearing on
his fitness for suitability to the post, he can
be terminated from service. The relevant
paragraphs of the judgment rendered in the
case of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra)
are extracted as under:-

 62. In the Union of India (UOI)
v. Dilip Kumar Mullick, (2022) 6 Scale
108, a CRPF officer had suppressed the
fact that the proceedings under the IPC
pending against him. The Court, while
referring to Avtar Singh (supra), held that
the suppression can be a ground for an
employer to cancel the candidature or to
terminate the services. The respondent
served in the organization since 2003 and
continued to remain as an under trial
accused without the knowledge of the
organisation. The respondent received an
honourable acquittal from the trial court.
This Court held as under:

"13. Thus, it remains beyond the
pale of doubt that the cases of nondisclosure of material information and of
submitting false information have been
treated as being of equal gravity by this
Court and it is laid down in no uncertain
terms that non-disclosure by itself may be a
ground for an employer to cancel the
candidature or to terminate services. Even
in the summation above- quoted, this Court
has emphasized that information given to
the employer by a candidate as to criminal
case including the factors of arrest or
pendency of the case, whether before or
after entering into service, must be true and
there should be no suppression or false
mention of the required information.

14. In case of suppression, when
the facts later come to the knowledge of
employer, different courses of action may
be adopted by the employer depending on
the nature of fault as also the nature of
default; and this Court has indicated that if
the case is of trivial nature, like that of
shouting slogans at a young age etc., the
employer may ignore such suppression of
fact or false information depending on the
factors as to whether the information, if
disclosed, would have rendered incumbent
unfit for the post in question.

14.1. However, the aforesaid
observations do not lead to the corollary
that in a case of the present nature where a
criminal case was indeed pending against
the
respondent
and
the
facts
were
altogether omitted from being mentioned,
the employer would be obliged to ignore
such defaults and shortcomings. ... x x x x

16. In the given set of facts and
circumstances,
where suppression
of
relevant information is not a matter of
dispute, there cannot be any legal basis for
the Court to interfere in the manner that
the employer be directed to impose 'any
lesser punishment', as directed by the
Division Bench of the High Court. The
submissions seeking to evoke sympathy and
calling for leniency cannot lead to any
relief in favour of the respondent."
[Emphasis supplied]

63. In the case of Pawan Kumar
v. Union of India, (2022) SCC OnLine SC
532, a case was registered against the
appellant for the offences punishable under
Sections 148, 149, 323, 356 and 506 of the
IPC.
The
appellant
was
honourably
acquitted. However, the fact of the said
criminal prosecution was not disclosed in
2 All. Satyendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
901
the attestation form filled by the petitioner.
On such ground, the appellant was
discharged from service. The High Court
upheld the discharge. While allowing the
appeal, this 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. What being noticed by this Court is
that mere suppression of material/false
information in a given case does not mean
that
the
employer
can
arbitrarily
discharge/terminate the employee from
service.

x x x x

18. The criminal case indeed was
of trivial nature and the nature of post and
nature of duties to be discharged by the
recruit has never been looked into by the
competent authority while examining the
overall suitability of the incumbent keeping
in view Rule 52 of the Rules 1987 to
become a member of the force. Taking into
consideration the exposition expressed by
this Court in Avtar Singh (supra), in our
considered view the order of discharge
passed by the competent authority dated
24th April, 2015 is not sustainable and in
sequel thereto the judgment passed by the
Division Bench of High Court of Delhi does
not hold good and deserves to be set
aside." [Emphasis supplied]

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

65. Thus, this Court took the view
that irrespective of the fact whether the
dispute is of a trivial nature or not, it is the
credibility/ trustworthiness of a particular
employee which matters the most when it
comes to public employment. This Court
took the view that if a particular employee
suppresses something important or makes
any false declaration with a view to secure
public employment then such employee
could be said to have exhibited a tendency
which is likely to shake the confidence of
the employer. In such circumstances, it
would be within the discretion of the
employer whether to continue or not to
continue such an employee who has
exhibited a tendency which reflects on his
overall character or credibility.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

68. The only reason to refer to
and look into the various decisions
rendered by this Court as above over a
period of time is that the principles of law
laid therein governing the subject are bit
inconsistent. Even after, the larger Bench
decision in the case of Avtar Singh (supra)
different courts have enunciated different
principles.

69. In such circumstances, we
undertook some exercise to shortlist the
broad principles of law which should be
made applicable to the litigations of the
present nature. The principles are as
follows:

a)
Each
case
should
be
scrutinised thoroughly by the public
employer concerned, through its designated
officials-more
so,
in
the
case
of
recruitment for the police force, who are
under a duty to maintain order, and tackle
lawlessness, since their ability to inspire
902 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
public confidence is a bulwark to society's
security. [See Raj Kumar (supra)]

b) Even in a case where the
employee has made declaration truthfully
and correctly of a concluded criminal case,
the employer still has the right to consider
the antecedents, and cannot be compelled
to appoint the candidate. The acquittal in a
criminal case would not automatically
entitle a candidate for appointment to the
post. It would be still open to the employer
to consider the antecedents and examine
whether
the
candidate
concerned
is
suitable and fit for appointment to the post.

c) The suppression of material
information and making a false statement
in the verification Form relating to arrest,
prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear
bearing on the character, conduct and
antecedents of the employee. If it is found
that the employee had suppressed or given
false information in regard to the matters
having a bearing on his fitness or
suitability to the post, he can be terminated
from service.

d) The generalisations about the
youth, career prospects and age of the
candidates leading to condonation of the
offenders' conduct, should not enter the
judicial verdict and should be avoided.

e) The Court should inquire
whether the Authority concerned whose
action is being challenged acted mala fide.

f) Is there any element of bias in
the decision of the Authority?

g) Whether the procedure of
inquiry adopted by the Authority concerned
was fair and reasonable?

24. This court finds that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in
the case of Satish Chandra Yadav
(supra) has categorically held that if an
employee while filling up his application
form for appointment on the post has
suppressed/concealed the pending criminal
case, then it has a clear bearing on the
character, conduct and antecedents of the
employee and therefore, if it is found that
employee has suppressed or given false
information in regard to the matters having
bearing on his fitness for suitability to the
post, his services can be terminated. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held
that that the generalisations about the
youth, career prospects and age of the
candidate leading to condonation of the
offenders' conduct, should not enter into
the judicial verdict and should be avoided.

25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
again considered the law in respect of issue
involved in this writ petition and has
rendered a judgment in the case of
Bhupendra Yadav (supra), wherein it has
been held that if a candidate in a selection
has suppressed/concealed material facts
relating to criminal cases pending against
him, then if the employer feels that a
candidate who at the initial stage itself has
made a false statement and/or not disclosed
the material facts and therefore, he cannot
be continued in service because such an
employee cannot be relied upon in future,
the employer cannot be forced to continue
such an employee. The relevant paragraphs
of the judgment rendered in the case of
Bhupendra Yadav (supra) are extracted
as under:-

"13. In Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut
Prasaran Nigam Limited and Another v.
Anil Kanwaria, where the employer had
invited applications for the post of a
Technical Helper and on qualifying for the
said post, the respondent therein was
appointed as a probationer trainee, in the
course of his police verification which was
a pre-condition for confirming him to the
post, it had transpired that he had been
2 All. Satyendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
903
convicted by the trial Court for offences
under Sections 323 and 341 of the IPC but
was extended benefit under the Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958 and released on
good conduct. This Court observed that at
the time of submitting an application for
appointment, the respondent had already
suffered a conviction by the competent
Court which fact was withheld by him and
he had filed a false declaration. These facts
emerged only after receiving the police
verification report. After distilling the law
on appointments obtained by fraud or
misrepresentation/by
suppression
of
material facts, this Court proceeded to
quash and set aside the order passed by the
learned Single Judge and upheld the order
passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court, directing reinstatement of the
respondent - employee and held that said
decision was unsustainable in view of the
fact
that
the
employee
had
not
disclosed/suppressed material facts and
had filed a false declaration.

14. In the captioned case, this
Court expressed a view that even where
there was a subsequent acquittal, the
employee
having
furnished
false
information/indulged in suppression of
material fact of a pending criminal case,
cannot claim appointment as a matter of
right. Following are the observations made
regarding the credibility of such an
employee from the perspective of the
employer:

"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
andwhether 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. The choice/option whether to
continue or not to continue such an
employee always must be given to the
employer. 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."

15.
On
applying
the
law
expounded by this Court in a series of
decisions to the facts of the instant case, we
find that the Division Bench of the High
Court has dismissed the appeal1 preferred
by the appellant - State Government and
set aside the order passed by the learned
Single Judge who had upheld the order
passed
by
the
Competent
Authority,
terminating the services of the respondent
on the ground that he was candid enough
to make a disclosure in his verification
form
stating
that
he
had
been
chargesheeted in a criminal case wherein
he was later on acquitted and there was no
other criminal case pending against him at
the relevant time.

16. We are, however, unable to
concur with the aforesaid view. Even
though the respondent had truthfully
904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
declared that he was involved in a criminal
case which was decided by the trial Court
vide judgement 26th October, 2015, on
perusing the facts of the said case as noted
hereinabove and the observations made in
the judgement, quite clearly, this was not a
case of clean acquittal. It is evident from
the
facts
narrated
that
after
the
chargesheet was filed, the respondent had
arrived
at
a
compromise
with
the
complainant and filed an application under
Section 320 of the CrPC, based on which
the offence under Section 341 IPC was
compounded. As for the remaining offences
for which the respondent was charged i.e.
Section 354(D) of the IPC and Section 11
(D)/12 of the POCSO Act, they were non
compoundable and therefore, the matter
was taken to trial. The respondent was
acquitted by the trial Court primarily on
account of the fact that the complainant did
not support the case set up by the
prosecution and the other prosecution
witnesses had turned hostile. In such
circumstances, the respondent's plea that
he had been given a clean acquittal in the
criminal case, is found to be devoid of
merits."

26. This court finds that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in its judgments has
considered the issue of non-disclosure of
pending criminal cases by an employee
while submitting his application form
for selection/appointment and has held
that concealment/suppression of the
facts relating to pending criminal cases
has a clear bearing on the character,
conduct
and
antecedents
of
the
employee therefore, if it is found that
the employee has suppressed or given
false information in regard to the
matters having a bearing on his conduct
for suitability to the post, he can be
terminated from service.

27. This court further finds that
petitioner while filling up the application
form for appointment on the post of
Stenographer Grade III has deliberately
suppressed/concealed the fact of pending
criminal case against him and therefore, the
employer after considering the entire facts
and circumstances of the case, particularly
keeping in view the trust and responsibility
attached to the post of Stenographer in the
Civil Court, has found that petitioner can
not
be
appointed
on
the
post
of
Stenographer Grade III and thereby has
cancelled his candidature vide order dated
11.8.2023.