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

- **Citation:** (2024) 10 ILRA 315
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-10-01
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 3561 of 2023
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/siddharth-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54646
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-The petitioner's candidature
for the position of Police Constable in
Uttar Pradesh was rejected by the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Varanasi citing a
criminal case against him despite his
subsequent acquittal-The case pertains to
allegations u/s 498A,323,504,506 & 3⁄4
D.P. Act-this rejection was challenged -
Held, the court criticized the mechanical
approach of rejecting candidates based
solely on pending or resolved criminal
cases, especially in light of societal issues
such as false implications in section 498Athe court emphasized that trivial incidents
or social disputes should not permanently
disqualify
a
person
from
public
employment
if
they
demonstrate
otherwise clean antecedents-the court
quashed the order of rejection and issued
a
mandamus
directing
the
Deputy
Commissioner of Police to reconsider the
case within three weeks.(Para 1 to 21)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,937 of 42,438. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39937 for what follows._

10 All. Siddharth Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
315
Court in 'XYZ' vs. State of MP and others
in year 2022. the impugned order passed by
learned trial court is found to be contrary to
law and deserves to be set aside.

17. Accordingly, present criminal
revision is allowed and the impugned order
dated 23.6.2023, passed by learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Hathras in Criminal
Complaint Case No.849/12/2022, is hereby
set aside and the matter is remanded to
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras
to decide the same afresh after giving
opportunity of hearing to the revisionist/defacto complainant in the light of law
propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court as
discussed hereinabove.
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 315
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.10.2024

BEFORE

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

Writ-A No. 3561 of 2023

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Raghavendra Sharan Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-The petitioner's candidature
for the position of Police Constable in
Uttar Pradesh was rejected by the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Varanasi citing a
criminal case against him despite his
subsequent acquittal-The case pertains to
allegations u/s 498A,323,504,506 & 3⁄4
D.P. Act-this rejection was challenged -
Held, the court criticized the mechanical
approach of rejecting candidates based
solely on pending or resolved criminal
cases, especially in light of societal issues
such as false implications in section 498Athe court emphasized that trivial incidents
or social disputes should not permanently
disqualify
a
person
from
public
employment
if
they
demonstrate
otherwise clean antecedents-the court
quashed the order of rejection and issued
a
mandamus
directing
the
Deputy
Commissioner of Police to reconsider the
case within three weeks.(Para 1 to 21)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Commr. Of Police & ors.Vs Sandeep Kumar
(2011) 4 SCC 644

2. Ram Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors.(2011) 14
SCC 709

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

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

1. This writ petition is directed
against
an
order
of
the
Deputy
Commissioner
of
Police,
Police
Headquarters,
Police
Commissionerate,
Varanasi dated 03.02.2023, rejecting the
petitioner's case for appointment as a
Constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police, on
account of a criminal case lodged against
him, of which he has been later on
acquitted.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition
would show that the petitioner staked his
claim for the post of a Police Constable in
the Uttar Pradesh Police. This was in the
recruitment year 2013. The petitioner was
selected for the post and the date for his
training was scheduled as 02.12.2015.
After the petitioner was selected, in the
Police Verification Report Form (PVR), he
316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
disclosed that a criminal case had been
lodged against him, in which this Court had
stayed
proceedings.
The
Senior
Superintendent of Police, Varanasi by his
order
dated
02.02.2016
rejected
the
petitioner's candidature on ground of
pendency of that case. That order of the
Senior S.P., Varanasi was challenged by
the petitioner before this Court by means of
Writ-A No.18399 of 2016, wherein an
interim order dated 26.04.2016 was granted
to the following effect:

"In
the
meantime,
the
respondents are directed to send the
petitioner for training and if he successfully
completes
his
training,
then
in
his
appointment letter it would be mentioned
that the appointment of the petitioner shall
abide by the result of the writ petition."

3. This order was challenged by the
State
by
means
of
Special
Appeal
Defective No.130 of 2017. The Division
Bench allowed the appeal vide judgment
and order dated 27.02.2017 and set aside
the interim order dated 26.04.2016. The
learned Single Judge was required to
decide the writ petition on merits. The writ
petition came up before the learned Single
Judge for hearing on 19.09.2022 and this
Court vide judgment and order of that date
set aside the order dated 02.02.2016 passed
by the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Varanasi,
rejecting
the
petitioner's
candidature, with a remit of the matter to
the said Officer carrying a direction to take
into account the subsequent acquittal that
the petitioner had earned vide judgment
and order dated 05.03.2019 passed by the
learned Magistrate. The learned Judge
directed the Senior S.P. that in taking his
decision, he shall exercise his power
independently, in accordance with law, but
would consider the effect of the judgment
of acquittal dated 05.03.2019 passed by the
learned Magistrate in the criminal case.

4. When the matter again came up
before
the
respondents,
this
time,
represented by the Deputy Commissioner
of Police, Police Headquarters, Police
Commissionerate, Varanasi, he proceeded
to reject the petitioner's candidature vide
order
dated
03.02.2023,
holding
the
judgment of the Trial Court not to have
cleansed or purged the petitioner of the
lingering shadows of the crime, which in
the view of the Deputy Commissioner of
Police, he had committed but got away
because of some kind of a compromise
reached outside Court.

5. Aggrieved, this writ petition has
been instituted.

6. A notice of motion was issued on
03.03.2023. Parties have exchanged a short
counter and a short rejoinder, besides a
counter affidavit on behalf of respondent
Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6, to which a rejoinder too
has
been
filed.
The
parties
having
exchanged pleadings, this petition was
admitted to hearing on 20.09.2024, which
proceeded forthwith and judgment was
reserved.

7. Heard Mr. Raghavendra Sharan
Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel on
behalf of the respondents.

8. A perusal of the impugned order
shows that the Deputy Commissioner of
Police has gone more by the fact that a
crime was registered against the petitioner,
wherein after investigation, the Police filed
a charge-sheet. He has then opined that a
perusal of the judgment passed by the
10 All. Siddharth Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
317
learned
Magistrate,
acquitting
the
petitioner, does not surely lend itself to a
construction that the petitioner had not
committed the crime. The reason for this
conclusion is that the prosecution witnesses
had turned hostile, the advantage of which
went to the petitioner. There is a remark by
the Deputy Commissioner of Police that in
the social milieu of rural life, it is often
seen that domestic disputes, leading to FIRs
/ NCRs, invite intervention of some
respectable persons of the society, who
mediate
the
dispute,
resulting
in
a
compromise between parties. This in turn
causes the witness to go hostile. The impact
of the hostility of witnesses in a Criminal
Court is that the prosecution is not able to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt,
leading to the accused being acquitted. It is
then remarked that in the present case
something of this kind has happened. It is
then added that a person to be appointed to
the Police must be a man of clean
antecedents.
A
man
with
criminal
antecedents, if appointed to the Police
Force, would put a question mark on their
image. It is more or less on the said
reasoning that the Deputy Commissioner of
Police has proceeded to pass the order
impugned.

9. The short counter affidavit and the
rejoinder are not of much relevance
because
the
first
respondent
has
disassociated itself from any issue in the
matter, leaving it to the Police Authorities
who passed the impugned order to answer
the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, that
has been filed on behalf of respondent
Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6, the stand taken is that the
Commissioner of Police, Varanasi directed
verification of the petitioner and it was
found that Crime No.359 of 2013, under
Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read
with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act was registered against him. In this
regard,
the
opinion
of
the
District
Magistrate, Varanasi was obtained and he
gave opinion that the petitioner is not a fit
person for appointment on a Constable's
post in the Civil Police. As such, the then
Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi
passed
the
order
dated
02.02.2016,
rejecting the petitioner's candidature, since
set aside by this Court. There is then a
copious reference to Government Order
No. 4694-II-B-321-1947 dated 28.04.1958,
which has bearing upon matters of
character
verification
of
candidates,
seeking employment under the State
Government. It is again mentioned there
that the Senior Superintendent of Police
referred
the
matter
to
the
District
Magistrate in accordance with the said
Government
Order,
who
opined
the
petitioner not fit for appointment vide his
letter dated 20.01.2023. The stand is that
the District Magistrate had given legal
opinion to the effect that the judgment of
the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, acquitting the petitioner, was
due to the witnesses hostility, leaving the
Appointing Authority free to take his
decision. It is then averred that the
Appointing
Authority,
taking
into
consideration the fact that the petitioner
had been acquitted due to witnesses turning
hostile, held that he was not a person of
good
character,
free
from
criminal
antecedents and, therefore, unfit to be
recruited to the Police Force. If appointed,
he would bring the Police a bad name. It is
more or less on these grounds, most of
which figure in the impugned order, that
the respondents have sought to support
their action.

10. Upon hearing learned Counsel for
the parties, we are of opinion that the
purpose of all rules relating to recruitment
318 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and the way the law about it has evolved, is
to keep persons with criminal antecedents
out of government service; not just the
Police. It is for this reason that the
Government Order of 1958 makes very
elaborate provision in keeping with the
time when it was issued to check on the
criminal antecedents of a prospective
appointee to government service. It would
be apposite to extract the relevant part of
the Government Order dated 28.04.1958:

 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
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
10 All. Siddharth Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
319
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,

 (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
320 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

11. A careful perusal of the
aforesaid Government Order shows that it
was never considered trite principle that
every conviction would lead to refusal of a
certificate of good character. It would, if
moral turpitude was involved or there was
participation in a crime of violence or
association with a movement which had for
its
object
overthrow
of
the
lawful
Government established in free India by
violent means. It would show the concern
of those who issued the Government Order
not to alienate from government service
young men of the time, who had
participated in movements to free India,
and may be, resorted to violent means
against the British Government. There are
also provisions about safeguarding the
interest of candidates for government
service against childhood indiscretions that
were committed by young men at a juvenile
age, who later on reformed themselves. The
reason why the District Magistrate was
associated with the process of character
verification was to secure, what was
thought at the time, a non-partisan view
about the antecedents of the person and not
just a stereotyped opinion, stencil cut on
the basis of registered criminal cases alone.
The later Government Orders have not
changed this position and the District
Magistrate's opinion is still sought by the
Police before verifying a candidate's
character.

12. It is quite another matter, as it
seems that the District Magistrates do not
seem to have lived up to the trust reposed
in them in that, that they too seem to refuse
certification of good character, if they find
a case registered against a candidate, or
even a judgment of acquittal that makes
them think that it was not honourable. Not
every crime, irrespective of its triviality, or
the fall out of a social malady, ought be
regarded as a definitive, pre-determined
disablement from government employment.
A young man or a woman could for once
be
accused,
rightly
or
wrongly,
of
indulging in some kind of a skirmish
leading to the registration of a case, say for
an offence punishable under Section 323,
504, 506 IPC. It may lead to a final report
or a charge-sheet. If charge-sheeted, the
trial may end in acquittal, or may be a
conviction too for the young man or
woman,
who
once
committed
the
indiscretion. But, never again. Should such
a person for all times to come be banished
from the privilege of public employment,
when otherwise the person possesses by all
other standards sterling character. This, of
course, would not hold true of a heinous
offence committed by a man or woman, not
a juvenile. Yet every indiscretion, as
already remarked, must not become a
lifetime disability for a person of good
character and sound talent to be deprived of
public employment. In this connection,
reference may be made to Commissioner
of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar,
(2011) 4 SCC 644. The facts in Sandeep
Kumar (supra) can best be recapitulated
in the words of their Lordships that say:
10 All. Siddharth Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
321
 "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."

13. In upholding the relief granted
by the High Court to the candidate seeking
employment in the police in Sandeep
Kumar, it was held by the Supreme Court:

 "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
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
322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rape, and hence a more lenient view should
be taken in the matter."

14. Of particular relevance in
connection with the present case is the
authority of the Supreme Court in Ram
Kumar v. State of U.P. and others,
(2011) 14 SCC 709. This case too related
to police service, where the candidate
seeking recruitment, had a criminal case in
the background, of which he was acquitted.
The facts in Ram Kumar (supra) again can
best be gathered from the report of their
Lordships' decision, which 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 12-62006 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
by the impugned order dated 31-8-2009 [
Special Appeal (Defective) No. 924 of
2009, order dated 31-8-2009 (All)]."

15. 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
10 All. Siddharth Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
323
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
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
324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

16. A mechanical approach, which
reads like a mathematical equation, always
leading to disqualification from public
employment for a person, against whom a
criminal case is registered - whatever be the
charge - even if he is acquitted - has to be
eschewed. The nature of the case against
the
person
has
to
be
taken
into
consideration and the background in which
the accusation came to be made. The
degree of moral turpitude attaching to the
crime given the prevailing circumstances in
society, must also be borne in mind. Also,
it cannot be discounted if the offence is one
that has become commonplace in society
by easy false implications. Of course, this
Court does not wish to say that any
generalization be made out of these
propositions. At the same time, the
Appointing Authority and the Advising
District Magistrate must carefully glean
through the evidence and circumstances
that may point towards a patently false
accusation, given the prevalent social
conditions about certain offences. The
background of the person and his general
reputation must also be taken into account,
particularly, when considering the effect of
a judgment of acquittal entered in his
favour by the Court that tried him.

17. This is particularly true, this
Court must make it bold to say, when an
offence punishable under Section 498-A
IPC and the accompanying charges under
Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
are in issue. While the evil may be rife in
society, it is equally true that there is
abundant
false
implication.
This
is
particularly so about the relatives of the
husband, not so directly connected, with
the sovoured matrimonial bond between the
spouses. This includes the husbands,
brothers, married sisters and the sister's
husband, all of whom may unnecessarily
suffer the stigma of being under the
malevolent shadow of a criminal case,
when there is not the slightest of
criminality about any facet of there being.

18. The petitioner in this case is
the brother of the prosecutrix's husband.
The District Magistrate and the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, as the Certifying
and the Appointing Authority, have applied
a thumb rule to the judgment of acquittal to
conclude against the petitioner on the
ground alone that the witnesses had turned
hostile. This is not a case involving a
heinous offence, where the accused - a
possible desperado or a hardened criminal -
might have suborned witnesses or won
them over. The crime itself is a fall out of
matrimonial maladjustment between the
spouses. The corpus delicti in this case
would not show any case or evidence of
violence. A perusal of the judgment, even if
the witnesses have been motivated by
compromise not to support the prosecution,
does in no way show the petitioner to be a
person of any kind of criminal antecedents.
Rather, this Court has no hesitation in
saying that he appears to be the victim of
an accident, because his brother and sisterin-law could not get along in matrimony.
Going a step further, if one were to think
that indeed the husband or the in-laws
demanded
dowry
or
mistreated
the
prosecutrix, there is nothing in the
judgment, particularly, appearing against
10 All. Siddharth Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
325
the petitioner. It would be too much, in our
opinion, to deprive a man otherwise of
clean antecedents, of hard won public
employment in the fashion the respondents
have done. It is clearly arbitrary.

19. The remarks about the
disciplined character of the Police Force
are no doubt very valid in themselves, but
the idea of this disciplined force cannot be
exalted to a position, where all candidates,
seeking recruitment to the Force, must be
expected to be men, unscathed by the wear
and tear of life or the accidents of
contemporary society. We think that the
Deputy Commissioner of Police as well as
the Collector, who advised in the matter,
applied an entirely unrealistic standard to
the case in judging the petitioner unsuitable
for recruitment to the Police. Both sides
have time and again placed reliance upon
the celebrated decision of the Supreme
Court on the issue in Avtar Singh v. Union
of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471.
The principles propounded there by their
Lordships have been summarized thus:

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

 38.4.3. 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.

 38.5. In a case where the
employee has made declaration truthfully
of a concluded criminal case, the employer
326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
still has the right to consider antecedents,
and cannot be compelled to appoint the
candidate.

 38.6. 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.

 38.7. 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.

 38.8.
If
criminal
case
was
pending but not known to the candidate at
the time of filling the form, still it may
have adverse impact and the appointing
authority
would
take
decision
after
considering the seriousness of the crime.

 38.9. 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.

 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.

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

20. Going by the principles
enumerated in Avtar Singh (supra), this
Court must remark that here is not a case of
any kind of suppression on the petitioner's
part. He has truthfully disclosed his
involvement in the case at the time he filled
up the Police Verification Report Form,
supported by an affidavit. The fact of
disclosure
is
not
disputed
by
the
respondents too. The principles in Avtar
Singh, also in the opinion of this Court,
would not work to mechanically disqualify
the petitioner in the manner the respondents
have chosen to do.

21. In the result, this writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 03.02.2023 passed by the
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Police
Headquarters,
Police
Commissionerate,
Varanasi is hereby quashed. A mandamus
is issued to the Deputy Commissioner of
Police aforesaid to pass fresh orders within
three weeks next of the receipt of a copy of
this judgment, bearing in mind the
guidance here.

22. There shall be no order as to
costs

23. Let a copy of this judgment be
communicated
to
the
Deputy
Commissioner
of
Police,
Police
Headquarters,
Police
Commissionerate,
10 All. Wasi Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
327
Varanasi
through
the
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Varanasi by the Registrar
(Compliance).
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 327
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-A No. 3827 of 2023