# Shivam Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 10 ILRA 889
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-10-01
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 12638 of 2024
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shivam-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51153
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

890 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A.
Service
Law
-
Cancellation
of
candidature/selection
-
Uttar
Pradesh
Police Constables & Head Constables
Service Rules, 2015 - This case is one of
utter lack of application of mind because the
Superintendent of Police has relied upon
paragraph No.38.7 of the principles in Avtar
Singh to hold the petitioner disentitled to
appointment. As a reading of paragraph
No.38.7 would show the said paragraph or
the principle carried therein, so to speak is
applicable
to
a
case
of
deliberate
suppression w.r.t. multiple pending cases,
which a candidate does not disclose. This,
by no means, is a case where multiple
cases were pending against the petitioner.
It is a case where a solitary crime was
registered by the Police and did not go an
inch beyond the registration, so far as the
petitioner is concerned. Now to invoke the
principle in paragraph No.38.7 and act on its
basis to cancel the petitioner's candidature or
selection, is a glaring case of non-application of
mind. (Para 20)

B. Merely, because someone has chosen to
falsely nominate a person in a crime,
about
which
the
Police
too
on
investigation do not find any evidence,
cannot lead to the conclusion that nondisclosure of the offence must invite
cancellation of candidature.

Paragraph No.38.8 of the principles in Avtar
Singh may have some relevance because the
principle there postulates that even if a
criminal case pending against a candidate
was not known to him at the time he filled
up his application form, it may still have
adverse
impact
and
the
Appointing
Authority would take a decision after
considering the seriousness of the crime.
In the present case, while technically the
principle in paragraph No.38.8 might have
relevance as remarked, this Court is of clear
opinion that on facts, it would not apply. The
reason is that there was absolutely not a
shred
of
evidence
ever
forthcoming
against the petitioner in the crime at any
stage of the matter. If there were some
material
against the
petitioner,
with
credibility attached to it, the petitioner
would have been charge-sheeted like the
other four accused nominated alongside
him. The fact that the charge-sheeted accused
were acquitted by the Court shows that the
prosecution was not able to establish its case at
all against men, who were accused alongside
the petitioner in the crime. But, the fact that the
Police could not lay its hands on any evidence
relating to the petitioner's complicity in the
crime, even as much as to warrant his joining
investigation or seeking bail, as a person
wanted in the crime, inevitably shows that the
petitioner's nomination was nothing more than a
false script on a piece of paper. Indeed, a
conclusion of this kind, given the nature of the
offence, the proceedings during investigation,
the non-complicity for the petitioner found by
the Police and the acquittal of the co- accused,
all read together, would be a disproportionate
measure to take on the respondents' part. In
fact, on this state of things for the S.P. to think
that this is a case where the petitioner's
candidature ought be cancelled is a perverse
conclusion. (Para 21)

The impugned order dated 08.07.2024 passed
by the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri is
hereby quashed. A mandamus is issued to the
Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri, ordering him
to consider the petitioner's case for appointment
as a Constable, without reference to the case
once registered against him and pass necessary
orders, granting him notional seniority with his
batch, within a period of six weeks of receipt of
a copy of this judgment. (Para 22)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,963 of 46,993. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39963 for what follows._

10 All. Shivam Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
889
Section 4 in the light of the definition of
employee in Section 2 ( e ) is to hold that a
person whose services are terminated for
any of the reasons mentioned in Section 4
(1), after the coming into force of the Act is
entitled to the payment of gratuity, if he has
rendered continuous service for not less
than five years, for that period during
which he has satisfied the definition of
employee under Section 2 (e ) of the Act."

 Having considered the aforesaid
dictum of the Apex Court as well as the
provisions of the Act, the inevitable
conclusion is that opposite party no.3 is
entitled for gratuity as he has rendered
more than five years of continuous service.
I find no illegality in the orders passed by
the Prescribed Authority as well as by the
Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for
the
petitioner
could
not
raise
any
substantial legal point to indicate that the
order suffers from any illegality in any
manner.

 The writ petition is devoid of
merit. It is accordingly dismissed."

20. Learned counsel for the
respondent have also relied upon the
judgment of this Court passed in the Writ
Petition No.310 (MS) of 2010; U.P.
Bhumi Sudhar Nigam T.C./19-B Vibhuti
Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow vs.
Appellate Authority and Others where
similar controversy had arisen and the
orders of the controlling authority and
appellate authority were assailed and this
Court after considering the facts had
dismissed the writ petition.

21. Parties have not disputed that
the facts are similar and, hence, the ratio of
the said case would duly apply to the facts
of the present case also.
22. Accordingly, this Court is of
the considered view that there is no
infirmity in the impugned orders passed by
the
controlling
authority
or
by
the
Appellate Authority which may require
interference of this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.

23. It is noticed that once the
judgment was available before the
authorities as rendered by this Court in
Writ Petition No.310 (MS) of 2010
[U.P. Bhumi Sudhar Nigam T.C./19-B
Vibhuti
Khand,
Gomti
Nagar,
Lucknow vs. Appellate Authority and
Others] then on the same facts multiple
writ petitions against the employees
without any discernible facts or law
should not have been filed. Such a
practice has already been deprecated by
the Hon?ble Apex Court where such
petitions have been held to be mere
certificate proceedings only to obtain
stamp of the Court and, accordingly, the
petition is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 889
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ-A No. 12638 of 2024

Shivam Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Atipriya Gautam, Jay Vishwanath Pandey,
Sr. Adv., Vinod Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.
890 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A.
Service
Law
-
Cancellation
of
candidature/selection
-
Uttar
Pradesh
Police Constables & Head Constables
Service Rules, 2015 - This case is one of
utter lack of application of mind because the
Superintendent of Police has relied upon
paragraph No.38.7 of the principles in Avtar
Singh to hold the petitioner disentitled to
appointment. As a reading of paragraph
No.38.7 would show the said paragraph or
the principle carried therein, so to speak is
applicable
to
a
case
of
deliberate
suppression w.r.t. multiple pending cases,
which a candidate does not disclose. This,
by no means, is a case where multiple
cases were pending against the petitioner.
It is a case where a solitary crime was
registered by the Police and did not go an
inch beyond the registration, so far as the
petitioner is concerned. Now to invoke the
principle in paragraph No.38.7 and act on its
basis to cancel the petitioner's candidature or
selection, is a glaring case of non-application of
mind. (Para 20)

B. Merely, because someone has chosen to
falsely nominate a person in a crime,
about
which
the
Police
too
on
investigation do not find any evidence,
cannot lead to the conclusion that nondisclosure of the offence must invite
cancellation of candidature.

Paragraph No.38.8 of the principles in Avtar
Singh may have some relevance because the
principle there postulates that even if a
criminal case pending against a candidate
was not known to him at the time he filled
up his application form, it may still have
adverse
impact
and
the
Appointing
Authority would take a decision after
considering the seriousness of the crime.
In the present case, while technically the
principle in paragraph No.38.8 might have
relevance as remarked, this Court is of clear
opinion that on facts, it would not apply. The
reason is that there was absolutely not a
shred
of
evidence
ever
forthcoming
against the petitioner in the crime at any
stage of the matter. If there were some
material
against the
petitioner,
with
credibility attached to it, the petitioner
would have been charge-sheeted like the
other four accused nominated alongside
him. The fact that the charge-sheeted accused
were acquitted by the Court shows that the
prosecution was not able to establish its case at
all against men, who were accused alongside
the petitioner in the crime. But, the fact that the
Police could not lay its hands on any evidence
relating to the petitioner's complicity in the
crime, even as much as to warrant his joining
investigation or seeking bail, as a person
wanted in the crime, inevitably shows that the
petitioner's nomination was nothing more than a
false script on a piece of paper. Indeed, a
conclusion of this kind, given the nature of the
offence, the proceedings during investigation,
the non-complicity for the petitioner found by
the Police and the acquittal of the co- accused,
all read together, would be a disproportionate
measure to take on the respondents' part. In
fact, on this state of things for the S.P. to think
that this is a case where the petitioner's
candidature ought be cancelled is a perverse
conclusion. (Para 21)

The impugned order dated 08.07.2024 passed
by the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri is
hereby quashed. A mandamus is issued to the
Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri, ordering him
to consider the petitioner's case for appointment
as a Constable, without reference to the case
once registered against him and pass necessary
orders, granting him notional seniority with his
batch, within a period of six weeks of receipt of
a copy of this judgment. (Para 22)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Avtar Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors., (2016) 8 SCC
471 (Para 11)

2. Commissioner of Police & ors. Vs Sandeep
Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644 (Para 15)

3. Ram Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (2011) 14
SCC 709 (Para 17)

Present petition is directed against an
order of the Superintendent of Police,
Mainpuri dated 08.07.2024, cancelling the
petitioner's selection/candidature as a
Constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police on
10 All. Shivam Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
891
ground of his involvement in a criminal
case.

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1 This writ petition is directed against
an order of the Superintendent of Police,
Mainpuri dated July the 8th, 2024,
cancelling
the
petitioner's
selection/
candidature as a Constable in the Uttar
Pradesh
Police
on
ground
of
his
involvement in a criminal case.

2. The petitioner was selected as a
Constable in the Constable Civil Police and
Constable
PAC,
Direct
Recruitment,
October, 2018-II, held pursuant to an
advertisement dated 16.11.2018 issued by
the Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Establishment/ Personnel, Office of the
DGP, Police Headquarters, Lucknow. The
petitioner says that pursuant to the
advertisement last mentioned, he applied
for the post of a Constable in the category
of OBC Male. He says that he was eligible
and fulfilled all the requisite qualifications
and
conditions
mentioned
in
the
advertisement
dated
16.11.2018.
The
application form was submitted online. A
total number of 49568 posts of Constables
Civil Police and PAC were advertised
through the advertisement under reference.
The petitioner says that 31360 posts
advertised were earmarked for the Civil
Police whereas 18208 for the Provincial
Armed Constabulary (PAC) Establishment.

3. Shorn of unnecessary detail, the
process of selection under the Uttar
Pradesh
Police
Constables
&
Head
Constables Service Rules, 2015 (for short,
'the Rules of 2015') involves a process of
selection where for the posts of Constables,
there is provision for a written examination,
followed by document verification, a
physical standard test and a physical
efficiency test. Those candidates, who
come out successful through all these tiers
of selection, find their name in the final
select list. Those who figure in the final
select list have then to undergo a medical
examination,
besides
a
character
verification. After the written examination,
the cut-off merit was published by a
notification dated 20.11.2019 and those
selected in the written examination were
called to appear in the next stage of
selection, to wit, document verification and
the physical standard test. The petitioner
qualified the written examination and
secured marks higher than the cut-off. He
was called for document verification and
the physical standard test. The petitioner
went through the document verification and
physical standard test successfully as well
as the physical efficiency test. This was
followed by declaration of final select list
vide notification dated 02.03.2020, issued
by the Chairman/ Secretary, Uttar Pradesh
Police Recruitment & Promotion Board,
Lucknow,
where
a
total
of
49568
candidates were declared selected for
various posts pursuant to the Direct
Recruitment of 2018-II.

4. A call letter was issued to the
petitioner, asking him to appear in the
medical examination, scheduled to be held
at the Reserve Police Lines, Ghaziabad.
The petitioner appeared in the medical
examination at the appointed time and
venue, where he was declared medically fit.
He was then allotted District Mainpuri to
join his training. The petitioner's papers
were sent to the Superintendent of Police,
Mainpuri for followup action, as the
petitioner says, but at Mainpuri, he was not
allowed to join training by the S.P. Going
back a little in point of time, the petitioner
says that at the time he went through his
892 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
medical
examination
and
document
verification, the petitioner was required to
furnish personal information in the form of
a notarized affidavit and the petitioner
submitted his notarized affidavit before the
competent Authority on 10.09.2020, where
the petitioner did not disclose that any
criminal case was pending against him. It is
pleaded by the petitioner that at the time he
submitted the notarized affidavit before the
competent Authority on 10.09.2020, there
was no criminal case against the petitioner,
and, therefore, he was not obliged to say
that one was pending against him. The
petitioner, however, was not permitted to
join training by the S.P., Mainpuri on
ground that a criminal case was registered
against him.

5. The petitioner says that an FIR
was lodged against the petitioner on
21.07.2019, giving rise to Crime No.0615
of 2019, under Sections 147, 323, 504 IPC
and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act,
Police
Station
Muradnagar,
District
Ghaziabad. The said FIR was lodged by
one Brijesh Kumar against five accused
men, to wit, Rinku (a nick name for the
petitioner), Punit, Vinit, Pradeep and
Ravinder. This FIR was registered, the
petitioner says, behind his back with the
petitioner not knowing anything about the
occurrence, where he was not present. At
the time of the incident shown in the FIR,
the petitioner was preparing to write his
competitive examinations. He says that he
was deliberately implicated to harm him in
his career. The petitioner was never
arrested in connection with the crime under
reference nor was he ever called upon to
furnish bail or secure an order of bail from
the Court of competent jurisdiction. In fact,
the petitioner was never summoned in
connection with the case by the Court. It is
true that the petitioner was named in the
FIR, as it later transpired, but the Police,
after collecting evidence, submitted a
charge-sheet on 19.10.2019, under Sections
323, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the
SC/ST Act against four persons, to wit,
Punit, Vinit, Pradeep and Ravinder, but not
the petitioner. He was exculpated. The
petitioner was also not summoned by the
Court at any stage, whereas the chargesheeted accused were tried and acquitted by
the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/
Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad vide
judgment and order dated 11.03.2024.

6. A notice of motion was issued
by a detailed order dated 23.09.2024 passed
by this Court, in response whereto a
personal affidavit has been filed by the
Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri. It is
taken on record and shall be read as a
counter affidavit to this petition. The
respondents do not seek opportunity to file
any further affidavit and the learned
Counsel for the petitioner waives his
opportunity to file a rejoinder.

7. Admit.

8. Heard forthwith.

9. Heard Mr. Rishabh Kesarwani,
learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms.
Monika Arya, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
the State.

10. What this Court finds is that
the
impugned
order,
cancelling
the
petitioner's candidature, has been passed
rather
mechanically
for
the
mere
registration of a case that the petitioner did
not disclose in his affidavit. The nondisclosure has been blamed upon the
petitioner as a relevant fact, disentitling
him to be appointed. This is not a case
10 All. Shivam Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
893
where the registration of the FIR led to
anything against the petitioner. He was
never arrested in the crime nor did he
secure bail from any Court. He was never
summoned in relation to the case at any
stage. Therefore, when he filled up the
form, the petitioner was not aware of the
fact that a crime had been registered against
him, which was pending investigation.
Now, the Superintendent of Police says that
he has left Clause 11, sub-Clauses 1, 2 and
3 blank in the application form or the
affidavit, whatever the Superintendent of
Police is referring to in paragraph No.8 of
the
affidavit,
and
further
says
that
according to the report of the Circle
Officer, Sadar, Ghaziabad, the crime was
under investigation on 19.12.2020, when
the Circle Officer made his report. There is
no pleading to the effect that the petitioner
had been summoned in connection with the
crime by the Police or the Court or that he
was aware of it by any such step as the
seeking of bail or joining investigation. The
contents of paragraph No.34 of the writ
petition, where it is said that he never was
arrested or secured bail or summoned, have
not been denied or dispelled in the
Superintendent of Police's affidavit. It can
well, therefore, be inferred that the
petitioner never came to know about the
registration of the crime, which ultimately
led to a final report in his favour and a
charge-sheet against the other accused. The
petitioner says that he was studying for his
competitive examinations and was not in
the locale. It is quite plausible, as it
happens, that the petitioner being selected
in government service, his name was
introduced in the FIR along with some
others, who were somehow suspected of
the crime. The petitioner was exculpated by
the Police whereas the other co-accused
were charge-sheeted, tried and acquitted. In
these circumstances, if the petitioner did
not mention registration of the crime in the
application form or the affidavit furnished
during the recruitment process, it cannot be
regarded
blameworthy
conduct.
The
circumstances do show that the petitioner
might be utterly unaware of the case
registered with the Police, as he asserts. In
the affidavit, the stand taken by the
Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri is that
the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Ghaziabad by his letter dated 15.03.2024
forwarded the petitioner's recruitment
documents to the District Magistrate,
recommending a thorough evaluation of his
suitability for recruitment as a Constable in
accordance with the guidelines carried in
the Government Order dated 28.04.1958.
The District Magistrate vide letter dated
08.04.2024 sent the original documents
relating to the petitioner's recruitment to
the Additional Commissioner of Police,
Ghaziabad,
indicating
the
following
opinion- "In mine opinion, the provisions
concerning character verification under the
paragraph no. 8 of the government order
dated 26.04.1958 and in para 38(7) of the
Supreme Court's pronouncement in Avatar
Singh vs. Union of India stipulate that
deliberate suppression of facts, with
respect to multiple pending case such false
information
by
itself
will
assume
significance and an employer may pass
appropriate order cancelling candidature
or terminating service as appointment of a
person against whom multiple criminal
cases were pending may not be proper".

11. To say the least, the District
Magistrate's opinion or that of the
Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri in
writing the impugned order, betrays utter
lack of application of mind, both as to the
terms of the Government Order dated
28.04.1958 and the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of
894 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471. It is
not the purpose of the Government Order
or the law that the Courts have laid down
that capable persons of good character
should be deprived of public employment,
because they have had the accident of a
case being registered against them, where
nothing of complicity was ever found. The
purpose of all laws that disentitle from
recruitment to government service persons,
against whom criminal cases are registered,
is to eliminate from public employment
men of criminal and shady antecedents. It
is the object, purpose and spirit of the
principle that has to be understood and not
a
mathematical
formula
applied
mechanically to every case where the
Government find that a case was registered
against a candidate for public service,
irrespective of its nature, result or the
aspirant's involvement therein.

12. So far as the issue of
suppression is concerned, it must be
remembered
that
suppression
is
blameworthy conduct if the concerned
candidate is aware about the registration of
a case. Suppression in itself postulates
awareness about a fact. A person, who does
not know a fact or is unaware of it, cannot
be blamed with suppression thereof merely
because he has not stated it. To infer from a
blank column, the petitioner's awareness of
the case registered against him is too far
fetched a conclusion to draw, or at least,
not a reasonable one. There could be many
inexplicable reasons for a candidate to miss
out on filling up a column and not every
column left unfilled, tells the story of
hidden truths. Sometimes omissions are
accidental and sometimes the outcome of
oppressively perplexing detail, which may
lead to such omissions. Sometimes it is
pure doubt and the fear or hesitation of
committing a mistake and suffering a
technical rejection by the less human eye of
a computer device.

13. The petitioner has given a very
logical explanation about the fact of not
mentioning the registration of a case
against him in paragraph No.34 of the writ
petition and we need not repeat it. The
substance of it is that there was just the
registration of a crime against the petitioner
in a virtually a petty offence, where he was
exculpated by the Police and never chargesheeted. Those, who were, came to be
acquitted. At this stage, it would be
relevant to refer to the relevant part of the
Government Order dated 28.04.1958, on
which much reliance has been placed by
the respondents. It reads:

 "3. (a) Every direct recruit to any
service
under
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Government will be required to produce:

 (i) A certificate of conduct and
character from the head of the educational
institution where he last studied (if he went
to such an institution).

 (ii) Certificates of character from
two persons. The appointing authority will
lay down requirements as to kind of
persons from whom it desires these
certificates.

 b)
In
cases
of
doubt,
the
appointing authority may either ask for
further references, or may refer the case to
the District Magistrate concerned. The
District Magistrate may then make further
enquiries as he considers necessary.

 Note(a) A conviction need not of
itself involve the refusal of a certificate of
good character. The circumstances of the
conviction should be taken into account
10 All. Shivam Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
895
and if they involve on moral turpitude or
association with crimes of violence or with
a movement which has its object to
overthrow by violent means of Government
as by law now established in free India the
mere conviction need not be regarded as
disqualification. (Conviction of a person
during his childhood should not necessarily
operate as a bar to his entering Government
service. The entire circumstances in which
his conviction was recorded as well as the
circumstances in which he is now placed
should be taken into consideration. If he
has completely reformed himself on
attaining the age of understanding and
discretion, mere conviction in childhood
should not operate as a bar to his entering
Government service).

 (b) While no person should be
considered unfit for appointment solely
because of his political opinions, care
should be taken not to employ persons who
are likely to be disloyal and to abuse the
confidence placed in them by virtue of their
appointment. Ordinarily, persons who are
actively engaged in subversive activities
including members of any organization the
avowed object of which is to change the
existing order of society by violent means
should be considered unfit for appointment
under Government. Participation in such
activities at any time after attaining the age
of 21 years and within three years of the
date of enquiry should be considered as
evidence that the person is still actively
engaged in such activities unless in the
interval there is positive evidence of
change of attitude.

 (c) Persons dismissed by the
Central
Government
or
by
a
State
Government will also be deemed to be unfit
for appointment to any service under this
Government.
 2(d) In the case of direct recruits
to the State Services under the Uttar
Pradesh Government includes requiring the
candidates
to
submit
the
certificates
mentioned in paragraph 3 (a) above. The
appointing authority shall refer all cases
simultaneously
to
Deputy
Inspector
General of Police, intelligence and the
District Magistrate (of the home district
and of the district(s) where the candidate
has resided for more than a year within five
years of the date of the inquiry) giving full
particulars about the candidate. The District
Magistrate shall get the reports in respect of
the candidates from the Superintendent of
Police who will consult District Police
Records
and
records
of
the
Local
Intelligence Unit. The District Police or the
District Intelligence Unit shall not make
any enquiries on the spot, but shall report
from their records whether there is
anything against the candidate, but if in any
specific case the District Magistrate at the
instance of the appointing authority ask for
an enquiry on the spot the Local Police or
the Local Intelligence Units will do so and
report the result to him. The District
Magistrate shall then reports his own views
to the appointing authority. Where the
District Police or the Local Intelligence
Units report adversely about a candidate
the District Magistrate may give the
candidate a hearing before sending his
report.

 (e) In the case of direct recruits
(who are lower in rank than that of a State
Service Officer) of:

 (i)
the
police
(including
ministerial staff of Police Officers).
 (ii) the Secretariat.

 (iii) the staff employed in the
government factories,
896 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (iv) power houses and dams.

 besides requiring the candidates
to submit the certificates mentioned in
paragraph 3 (a) above, the appointing
authorities
shall
refer
all
cases
simultaneously to the Deputy Inspector
General,
C.I.D.
and
the
District
Superintendent of Police (of the home
district and of the district(s) where the
candidate has resided for more than a year
within five year of the date of the inquiry)
giving full particulars about the candidate.
The Superintendents of Police will send his
report direct to the appointing authority if
there is nothing adverse against the
candidate. In cases where the report is
unfavourable the Superintendent of Police
will forward it to the District Magistrate
who will send for the candidate concerned,
give him a hearing and then, form his own
opinion. All the necessary papers (the
Superintendent of Police's report the
candidate's statement and the District
Magistrate's finding) will there after be sent
to the appointing authority.

 4. It will be seen that in cases of
direct recruit to services other than those
mentioned in paragraphs 3 (c) and 3 (d)
above, verification shall not be necessary as
a matter of routine except in cases of doubt
when
the
procedure
mentioned
in
paragraph 3 (b) shall be followed.

 5. In the case of a candidate for
services mentioned in paragraphs 3 (c) and
3 (d) above-

 (i) if at the time of enquiry the
candidate is residing in a locality situated
outside Uttar Pradesh or if he has resided in
such a locality at any time within five years
of the date of enquiry for a period of one
year or more it shall be the duty of the
deputy Inspector General, C. I. D. to
consult also the C. I. D. D. of the State
concerned in which the locality is situated
before making his verification report.
 (ii) if the candidate was residing
before partition in area now comprising
Pakistan the Deputy Inspector General, C.
I. D. shall also make a reference to the
Director of Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of
Home Affairs, Government of India, in
addition to the usual enquires as indicated
above.

 6. It has also been observed that
where the District Magistrates are required
to
send
the
attestation
forms
they
sometimes
do
not
sign
the
forms
themselves, Government consider it very
desirable that the attestation forms should
invariably be signed by the District
Magistrates them selves in all such cases."

14. A perusal of the Government
Order dated 28.04.1958 would show that
the District Magistrate was entrusted with
the process of character verification in
order to secure a balanced opinion about
the
suitability
of
a
candidate
for
government service based on all relevant
facts. It was never the employment policy
of the State to exclude from consideration
for public employment every person
against whom a crime had been registered.
Of course, a heinous and serious crime
involving
moral
turpitude
and
some
proceeding showing involvement would
always be a criterion to exclude a candidate
unless subsequent proceedings demonstrate
him/her to be utterly innocent and not
involved at all. But a host of other offences,
trivial or not so trivial, or cases of utter
false accusation, where nothing turned out
against a person, would have to be gauged
by the District Magistrate for the purpose
of verifying a candidate's character and
10 All. Shivam Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
897
suitability for employment under the State.
If this were not the policy of the State,
there was no need for an elaborate
provision
where
the
Collector,
the
Superintendent of Police and in certain
cases, the CID, have to be involved before
a conclusion was reached, if a candidate is
suitable for public employment, registration
of a crime notwithstanding.

15. This matter came up before the
Supreme Court much earlier in the day than
Avtar Singh (supra) in Commissioner of
Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar,
(2011) 4 SCC 644. The facts in Sandeep
Kumar (supra) are described thus in
report:

 "2.
The
respondent
herein,
Sandeep Kumar applied for the post of
Head Constable (Ministerial) in 1999. In
the application form it was printed:

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

 Against
that
column
the
respondent wrote: "No".

 3. It is alleged that this is a false
statement made by the respondent because
he and some of his family members were
involved in a criminal case being FIR No.
362 under Sections 325/34 IPC. This case
was admittedly compromised on 18-1-1998
and the respondent and his family members
were acquitted on 18-1-1998.
 4.
In
response
to
the
advertisement issued in January 1999 for
filling up of certain posts of Head
Constables (Ministerial), the respondent
applied on 24-2-1999 but did not mention
in his application form that he was involved
in the aforesaid criminal case. The
respondent qualified in all the tests for
selection to the post of temporary Head
Constable (Ministerial). On 3-4-2001 he
filled the attestation form wherein for the
first time he disclosed that he had been
involved in a criminal case with his tenant
which, later on, had been compromised in
1998 and he had been acquitted.

 5. On 2-8-2001 a show-cause
notice was issued to him asking the
respondent
to
show
cause
why his
candidature for the post should not be
cancelled because he had concealed the fact
of his involvement in the aforesaid criminal
case and had made a wrong statement in his
application form. The respondent submitted
his reply on 17-8-2001 and an additional
reply but the authorities were not satisfied
with the same and on 29-5-2003 cancelled
his candidature."

16. Their Lordships of the
Supreme Court on the above mentioned
facts held:

 "8. We respectfully agree with
the Delhi High Court that the cancellation
of his candidature was illegal, but we wish
to give our own opinion in the matter.
When the incident happened the respondent
must have been about 20 years of age. At
that age young people often commit
indiscretions, and such indiscretions can
often be condoned. After all, youth will be
youth. They are not expected to behave in
as mature a manner as older people. Hence,
our approach should be to condone minor
898 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
indiscretions made by young people rather
than to brand them as criminals for the rest
of their lives.

 11. As already observed above,
youth often commits indiscretions, which
are often condoned.

 12. It is true that in the
application form the respondent did not
mention that he was involved in a criminal
case under Sections 325/34 IPC. Probably
he did not mention this out of fear that if he
did
so
he
would
automatically
be
disqualified. At any event, it was not such a
serious offence like murder, dacoity or
rape, and hence a more lenient view should
be taken in the matter."

17. Also relevant to the issue
under consideration in the present case is
the guidance of the Supreme Court in Ram
Kumar v. State of U.P. and others,
(2011) 14 SCC 709. The facts in Ram
Kumar (supra), as these appear in the
report of their Lordships' judgment read:

 "2. The facts very briefly are that
pursuant to an advertisement issued by the
State Government of U.P. on 19-11-2006,
the appellant applied for the post of
Constable and he submitted an affidavit
dated 12-6-2006 to the recruiting authority
in the pro forma of verification roll. In the
affidavit dated 12-6-2006, he made various
statements required for the purpose of
recruitment and in Para 4 of the affidavit he
stated that no criminal case was registered
against him. He was selected and appointed
as a male constable and deputed for
training.

 3. Thereafter, Jaswant Nagar
Police Station, District Etawah, submitted a
report
dated
15-1-2007
stating
that
Criminal Case No. 275 of 2001 under
Sections 324/323/504 IPC was registered
against the appellant and thereafter the
criminal case was disposed of by the
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Etawah on 18-7-2002 and the appellant was
acquitted by the court. Along with this
report, a copy of the order dated 18-7-2002
of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
was also enclosed.

 4. The report dated 15-1-2007 of
Jaswant Nagar Police Station, District
Etawah,
was
sent
to
the
Senior
Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. By
order
dated
8-8-2007,
the
Senior
Superintendent
of
Police,
Ghaziabad,
cancelled the order of selection of the
appellant on the ground that he had
submitted an affidavit stating wrong facts
and concealing correct facts and his
selection was irregular and illegal.

 5. Aggrieved, the appellant filed
Writ Petition No. 40674 of 2007 under
Article 226 of the Constitution before the
Allahabad High Court but the learned
Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by
his order dated 30-8-2007 [ WP (C) No.
40674 of 2007, order dated 30-8-2007
(All)] . The learned Single Judge held that
since the appellant had furnished false
information in his affidavit in the pro forma
verification roll, his case is squarely
covered by the judgment rendered by this
Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v.
Ram Ratan Yadav [(2003) 3 SCC 437 :
2003 SCC (L&S) 306] and that he was
rightly terminated from service without any
inquiry. The appellant challenged the order
of the learned Single Judge in Special
Appeal No. 924 of 2009 but the Division
Bench of the High Court did not find any
merit in the appeal and dismissed the same
10 All. Shivam Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
899
by the impugned order dated 31-8-2009 [
Special Appeal (Defective) No. 924 of
2009, order dated 31-8-2009 (All)]."

18. In Ram Kumar, it was held by
the Supreme Court:

 "9. We have carefully read the
Government Order dated 28-4-1958 on the
subject "Verification of the character and
antecedents of government servants before
their first appointment" and it is stated in
the government order that the Governor has
been pleased to lay down the following
instructions in supersession of all the
previous orders:

 "The rule regarding character of
candidate for appointment under the State
Government shall continue to be as
follows:

 The character of a candidate for
direct appointment must be such as to
render him suitable in all respects for
employment in the service or post to which
he is to be appointed. It would be the duty
of the appointing authority to satisfy itself
on this point."

 10. It will be clear from the
aforesaid instructions issued by the Governor
that the object of the verification of the
character and antecedents of government
servants before their first appointment is to
ensure that the character of a government
servant for a direct recruitment is such as to
render him suitable in all respects for
employment in the service or post to which
he is to be appointed and it would be a duty
of the appointing authority to satisfy itself on
this point.

 11. In the facts of the present
case, we find that though Criminal Case
No.
275
of
2001
under
Sections
324/323/504 IPC had been registered
against the appellant at Jaswant Nagar
Police Station, District Etawah, admittedly
the appellant had been acquitted by order
dated 18-7-2002 by the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Etawah.

 12. On a reading of the order
dated 18-7-2002 of the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate it would show that the
sole witness examined before the court, PW
1, Mr Akhilesh Kumar, had deposed before
the court that on 2-12-2000 at 4.00 p.m.
children were quarrelling and at that time
the appellant, Shailendra and Ajay Kumar
amongst other neighbours had reached
there and someone from the crowd hurled
abuses and in the scuffle Akhilesh Kumar
got injured when he fell and his head hit a
brick platform and that he was not beaten
by the accused persons by any sharp
weapon. In the absence of any other
witness
against
the
appellant,
the
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate
acquitted the appellant of the charges under
Sections 323/34/504 IPC. On these facts, it
was not at all possible for the appointing
authority to take a view that the appellant
was not suitable for appointment to the post
of a police constable.

 13. The order dated 18-7-2002 of
the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
had been sent along with the report dated
15-1-2007 of Jaswant Nagar Police Station
to the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Ghaziabad, but it appears from the order
dated
8-8-2007
of
the
Senior
Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, that
he has not gone into the question as to
whether the appellant was suitable for
appointment to service or to the post of
constable in which he was appointed and he
has only held that the selection of the
900 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appellant was illegal and irregular because
he did not furnish in his affidavit in the pro
forma of verification roll that a criminal
case has been registered against him.

 14. As has been stated in the
instructions in the Government Order dated
28-4-1958, it was the duty of the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, as the
appointing authority, to satisfy himself on
the point as to whether the appellant was
suitable for appointment to the post of a
constable, with reference to the nature of
suppression and nature of the criminal case.
Instead
of
considering
whether
the
appellant was suitable for appointment to
the post of male constable, the appointing
authority has mechanically held that his
selection was irregular and illegal because
the appellant had furnished an affidavit
stating the facts incorrectly at the time of
recruitment."

19. Of course, now the most
comprehensive treatment of the law on the
issue is to be found in Avtar Singh, which
by all means is the locus classicus. In
Avtar Singh, the following principles have
been summarized by the Supreme Court:

 38. We have noticed various
decisions and tried to explain and reconcile
them as far as possible. In view of the
aforesaid discussion, we summarise our
conclusion
thus:
38.1. 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.

 38.2. 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.

 38.3. The employer shall take
into
consideration
the
government
orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the
employee, at the time of taking the
decision.

 38.4. 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 recourses appropriate
to the case may be adopted:

 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.