# Sourabh Bhati v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 787
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-03
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 14111 of 2023
- **Bench:** Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sourabh-bhati-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52755
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

candidature, and of passing of acquittal order in
the same criminal case subsequent to passing of
impugned order of rejection of candidature.

Headnotes
Service law - Recruitment - Post of SubInspector - Rejection of candidature -
Pendency of criminal case - Petitioner
appeared in examination and after result
he was allowed to appear in physical
examination - Pendency of criminal case
was
disclosed
through
affidavit
filed
during
physical
examination
-
Candidature rejected - Validity challenged
-
Subsequently
the
petitioner
was
acquitted in the criminal case - Effect :
Held : Mere conviction is not a ground for
refusal of the appointment. In other words it
can be very well said that a consideration is to
be made at the end of the appointing authority
whether conviction can be a ground for offering
or refusing appointment looking into the facts
and circumstances of an individual matter -
Bearing in mind the fact that the Government
order dated 21.05.1958 is in existence and it is
applicable on the subject recruitment and it
does not in any way whatsoever impinge or
offend Rule 16 of the U.P. Sub-Inspector and
Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rule 2015, thus
the appointing authority is under obligation to
consider the claim of the writ petitioner with
respect to the import and impact of acquittal,
which is post passing of the order impugned.
[Paras 14 nd 15] (E- 1)

Case Law Cited
Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others,
(2016) 8 SCC 471; Civil Appeal no. 3419 of
2020, Anil Bhardwaj v. Hon'ble High Court of
Madhya Pradesh decided on 13.10.2020; Civil
Appeal No. 5902 of 2012, Ravindra Kumar vs.
State of U.P. decided on 22.02.2024; Special
788 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appeal No. 67 of 2023, Umesh Chand vs. The
State of U.P. and 3 others, decided on
24.03.2023; Civil Appeal Nos. 5743-5744 of
2021, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam
Limited and another v. Anil Kanwariya decided
on 17.09.2021; Civil Appeal No. 6238 of 2021,
Union of India and Others Vs. Methu Meda
decided on 06.10.2021, State of Rajasthan and
Ors. v. Chetan Jeff, AIR 2022 (SC) 2274; Civil
Appeal No.- 6955 of 2022, Satish Chandra
Yadav v. Union of India and Ors. decided on
26.09.2022, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 678
of 2021, Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla v. State of
Jammu & Kashmir and Others decided on
28.02.2023 - referred to.

List of Acts
UP Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police)
Service Rule 2015 - Rule 16; Government Order
dated 28.04.1958.

List of Keywords
Recruitment; Examination; Pendency of criminal
case; Moral turpitude; Character verification;
Document verification; Selection; Conviction;
Character certificate; Acquittal.

Case Arising From
Impugned order rejecting the candidature of
petitioner on the ground of pendency of criminal
case.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Shams Uz Zaman
Advs. For the Respondent : R.S. Umrao

## Text

11 All. Sourabh Bhati Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
787
Nirankari vs. State of U.P. and 2
Others) wherein this Court observed
that in case the employment has been
obtained based on fraudulent documents
on
concealing
material
facts,
the
beneficiary of such fraud cannot seek
any enquiry in terms of Uttar Pradesh
Government
Servant
(Discipline
&
Appeal) Rules, 1999. Pursuant thereto,
the impugned order has been passed
directing
the
management
to
take
appropriate action in the matter. Since
the
management
failed
to
act
in
accordance with the said directions, the
Authorized Controller has rightly been
appointed to ensure that the final action
is
taken
against
the
petitioner
in
accordance with law.

115. This Court finds no merits,
accordingly, the present writ petition stands
dismissed.

116. The Court record its sincere
appreciation for the diligent efforts and
valuable assistance extended by Ms. Shreya
Shukla, Research Associate. The depth,
precision and clarity displayed in her legal
research and analysis reflect exemplary
professionalism and meticulous attention to
detail.
The
Court
acknowledges
her
substantial
contribution
in
effectively
assisting the adjudication of the case.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 787
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ - A No. 14111 of 2023

Sourabh Bhati ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shams Uz Zaman

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Effect of pendency of criminal case on
candidature, and of passing of acquittal order in
the same criminal case subsequent to passing of
impugned order of rejection of candidature.

Headnotes
Service law - Recruitment - Post of SubInspector - Rejection of candidature -
Pendency of criminal case - Petitioner
appeared in examination and after result
he was allowed to appear in physical
examination - Pendency of criminal case
was
disclosed
through
affidavit
filed
during
physical
examination
-
Candidature rejected - Validity challenged
-
Subsequently
the
petitioner
was
acquitted in the criminal case - Effect :
Held : Mere conviction is not a ground for
refusal of the appointment. In other words it
can be very well said that a consideration is to
be made at the end of the appointing authority
whether conviction can be a ground for offering
or refusing appointment looking into the facts
and circumstances of an individual matter -
Bearing in mind the fact that the Government
order dated 21.05.1958 is in existence and it is
applicable on the subject recruitment and it
does not in any way whatsoever impinge or
offend Rule 16 of the U.P. Sub-Inspector and
Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rule 2015, thus
the appointing authority is under obligation to
consider the claim of the writ petitioner with
respect to the import and impact of acquittal,
which is post passing of the order impugned.
[Paras 14 nd 15] (E- 1)

Case Law Cited
Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others,
(2016) 8 SCC 471; Civil Appeal no. 3419 of
2020, Anil Bhardwaj v. Hon'ble High Court of
Madhya Pradesh decided on 13.10.2020; Civil
Appeal No. 5902 of 2012, Ravindra Kumar vs.
State of U.P. decided on 22.02.2024; Special
788 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appeal No. 67 of 2023, Umesh Chand vs. The
State of U.P. and 3 others, decided on
24.03.2023; Civil Appeal Nos. 5743-5744 of
2021, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam
Limited and another v. Anil Kanwariya decided
on 17.09.2021; Civil Appeal No. 6238 of 2021,
Union of India and Others Vs. Methu Meda
decided on 06.10.2021, State of Rajasthan and
Ors. v. Chetan Jeff, AIR 2022 (SC) 2274; Civil
Appeal No.- 6955 of 2022, Satish Chandra
Yadav v. Union of India and Ors. decided on
26.09.2022, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 678
of 2021, Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla v. State of
Jammu & Kashmir and Others decided on
28.02.2023 - referred to.

List of Acts
UP Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police)
Service Rule 2015 - Rule 16; Government Order
dated 28.04.1958.

List of Keywords
Recruitment; Examination; Pendency of criminal
case; Moral turpitude; Character verification;
Document verification; Selection; Conviction;
Character certificate; Acquittal.

Case Arising From
Impugned order rejecting the candidature of
petitioner on the ground of pendency of criminal
case.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Shams Uz Zaman
Advs. For the Respondent : R.S. Umrao

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1. On the oral request of the
learned counsel for the writ petitioner, he is
permitted to correct the array of the parties,
in so far as Respondent no.4 is concerned.

2. Heard Sri Shams Uz Zaman,
learned counsel for the writ petitioner and
Sri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel
for the State.

3. Since counter and rejoinder
affidavits have been exchanged between
the parties and a joint statement has been
made that they do not propose to file any
further affidavit, the writ petition is being
decided at the admission stage.

4. The case of the writ petitioner is
that the State of U.P. undertook exercise for
filling up of the post of Sub-Inspector,
Civil Police, P.C. (P.A.C) for the year
2020-21. The writ petitioner claims to have
applied
in
pursuance
of
the
said
advertisement. He was allotted Registration
No.
SICUP0932048
and
Roll
No.
LU1824148311 and Admit Card also
came to be issued and the writ petitioner
appeared in the examination, results were
declared on 22.10.2022 and he was
allowed
to
appear
in
physical
examination. Prior to the advertising of
the said post, a criminal case came to be
lodged against the writ petitioner being
Case Crime no.630 of 2019, under
Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506,
307, 325, 34 IPC and a charge sheet came
to be submitted against the writ petitioner
on 25.12.2019. The writ petitioner in the
affidavit so submitted at the stage of
physical verification of the documents
disclosed the factum of pendency of the
said case. However, the candidature of
the writ petitioner rejected on the premise
that there happens to be a criminal case
pending against the writ petitioner on
03.04.2023 by the Inspector General of
Police, Meerut Zone, Meerut.

5. Questioning the said order, the
present writ petition has been preferred.

6. This Court entertained the writ
petition on 05.09.2023, wherein a counter
affidavit was invited and the same has been
filed by the Respondent no.2, 3 and 4
respectively and the rejoinder affidavit is
also available on record.
11 All. Sourabh Bhati Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
789
7. Learned counsel for the writ
petitioner has sought to argue that the entire
exercise has been sought to be undertaken
by the respondents while rejecting the
claim of the writ petitioner and cancelling
the candidature of the writ petitioner by
virtue of the order dated 03.04.2023 cannot
be sustained in the eyes of law for even a
single moment. Submission is that it is not
a case that the writ petitioner had concealed
the factum of lodging of the criminal case,
as the same stood mentioned in the
affidavit which was submitted at the time
of document verification and on top of it
subsequently,
the
said
criminal
case
resulted into acquittal on 21.04.2025 by the
Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.4,
Baghpat in Sessions Trial no.112 of 2020
connected with Sessions Trial No.398 of
2019 being Case Crime no.630 of 2019,
under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506,
307, 325 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Argument of the writ petitioner is that once
the writ petitioner stood acquitted in the
criminal case, then the fetter, which was
tagged in the character of the writ petitioner
by virtue of the lodging of the FIR stands
obliterated.
Submission
is
that
the
judgment and the order of acquitted
presumes that there is no criminal case
against the writ petitioner and further
according to learned counsel for the writ
petitioner, the case of the writ petitioner is
on a better footing, particularly when there
has been disclosure of the said case. He
further submits that the order of acquittal is
dated 21.04.2025, however, the order
negating the claim of the writ petitioner is
dated 03.04.2023 and at that point of time,
the order of acquittal was not in existence.
Further submission is that there happens to
be a circular/ office order dated 28.04.1958,
which deals with the subject, verification of
the character of the first appointment,
according to which a conviction need not
itself involve the refusal of certificate of
good character, however, the circumstances
of the conviction should be taken into
account, if they involve moral turpitude or
association with the crime of violence or
with a movement which has its own object
to
overthrow
by
violent
means
of
Government or by law established in free
India that mere conviction need not be
regarded as disqualification. Reliance has
been placed upon a judgment of a Special
Appellate Bench in Special Appeal No.67
of 2023, Umesh Chand vs. State of U.P.
and 3 others, decided on 24.03.2023.

8. Strength has also been sought to
be injected upon the mandate of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh Vs.
Union of India and Others (2016) 8 SCC
471. Thus, it is prayed that the order dated
03.04.2023 passed by the Inspector General
of Police, Meerut Zone, Meerut, be set
aside and the matter be remitted back to the
authority to pass a fresh order considering
the import and impact of acquittal as well
as the Circular dated 28.04.1958.

9. Countering the submissions, so
made by the learned counsel for the writ
petitioner,
Sri
R.S.
Umrao,
learned
Standing Counsel submits that the writ
petitioner is not entitled to any relief for the
reason that there already existed a criminal
case against the writ petitioner being
Sessions Trial No.112 of 2020, under
Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 34, 504,
506 IPC and merely because the writ
petitioner stood acquitted would not clothe
him with any legal right to insist for
appointment as character verification is one
of the prerequisites that too in disciplined
force. He seeks to rely upon a decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal
no.3419 of 2020, Anil Bhardwaj vs.
790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh
decided on 13.10.2020.

10. I have heard the submissions so
made across the Bar and perused the
records carefully.

11. Facts are not an issue. It is not
in dispute that a recruitment exercise stood
undertaken for filling up the post of SubInspector in the year 2020-21 and the writ
petitioner applied for the post of SubInspector, Civil Police. The writ petitioner
during the document verification had
tendered an affidavit, disclosing the factum
of pendency of the criminal case being
Sessions Trial no.112 of 2020, under
Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 34, 504,
506 IPC. On investigation, the Appointing
Authority sought inputs from the District
Magistrate, with respect to character of writ
petitioner
and
thereafter
the
order
impugned came to be passed cancelling the
selection of the writ petitioner.

12. The procedure and the manner,
according to which, selection is to be made
on the post in question is governed by the
Rule namely Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector
and Inspector Civil Police Service Rule
2015. Rule 16 of the said Rule is quoted
hereinunder:-

 "Character Verification shall be
completed
under
the
supervision
of
appointing authority before issuing of
appointment letter and before sending the
candidates
for
training.
Ordinarily
character verification shall be completed
within a month. On adverse fact coming to
light during character verification of any
candidate, he shall be declared unfit by the
appointing authority and such vacancies
shall
be
carried
forward
for
next
selection."
13. Furthermore, the Government
Order
No.4694-II-B-321-1947
dated
28.04.1958 talks about the character of first
appointment and the relevant extract
whereof is being quoted hereinunder:-

 "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 abject to
overthrow by violent means of Government
as by law now established in free India the
mere conviction need not be regarded as
disqualification.1 (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
11 All. Sourabh Bhati Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
791
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)."

14. A bare look of the Government
Order dated 28.04.1958 would reveal that
in the cases of doubts the appointing
authority may either ask for further
references or may refer the case to the
District Magistrate concerned and the
District Magistrate can make further
enquiry for the grant of character certificate
and Note (a) itself provides that a
conviction need not of itself involve the
refusal of the certificate of good character,
the circumstances of conviction should be
taken into account and if they involve any
moral turpitude or association with the
crime of violence or with movement, which
has its object to overthrow by violent
means of government as by law now
established in free India, the conviction
need not be regarded as disqualification.
Thus, what is clear is this that mere
conviction is not a ground for refusal of the
appointment. In other words it can be very
well said that a consideration is to be made
at the end of the appointing authority
whether conviction can be a ground for
offering or refusing appointment looking
into the facts and circumstances of an
individual matter.

15. On a pointed query being raised
to
Sri
R.S.
Umrao,
whether
the
Government Order dated 21.05.1958 has
been superseded or amended or is not
applicable to the Sub-Inspector, the answer
is that the same is in existence and the same
is followed from time to time and further it
governs the field with respect to grant of
character certificate. Bearing in mind the
fact that the Government order dated
21.05.1958 is in existence and it is
applicable on the subject recruitment and it
does not in any way whatsoever impinge or
offend Rule 16 of the U.P. Sub-Inspector
and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rule
2015, thus the appointing authority is under
obligation to consider the claim of the writ
petitioner with respect to the import and
impact of acquittal, which is post passing
of the order impugned. In Avatar Singh vs.
Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471, the
following was observed:

 "34. No doubt about it that
verification of character and antecedents is
one of the important criteria to assess
suitability and it is open to employer to
adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but
ultimate action should be based upon
objective criteria on due consideration of
all relevant aspects.

 35. Suppression of "material"
information presupposes that what is
suppressed
that
"matters"
not
every
technical or trivial matter. The employer
has to act on due consideration of
rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of
powers in order to cancel candidature or
for terminating the services of employee.
Though a person who has suppressed the
material
information
cannot
claim
unfettered
right
for
appointment
or
continuity in service but he has a right not
to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of
power has to be in reasonable manner with
objectivity having due regard to facts of
cases.

 36. What yardstick is to be
applied has to depend upon the nature of
post, higher post would involve more
rigorous criteria for all services, not only
to uniformed service. For lower posts
792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which are not sensitive, nature of duties,
impact of suppression on suitability has to
be considered by authorities concerned
considering post/nature of duties/services
and power has to be exercised on due
consideration of various aspects.

 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
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
11 All. Sourabh Bhati Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
793
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."

16. Further the said issue also came
up for consideration in Civil Appeal
No.5902 of 2012, Ravindra Kumar vs.
State of U.P. decided on 22.02.2024,
wherein the following was observed: -

 "Further, in para 38.4.3 of Avtar
Singh (Supra) the principle that, in case of
suppression
or
false
information
of
involvement of criminal case, where
acquittal has already been recorded, the
employer can still consider all relevant
facts available as to antecedents and may
take appropriate decision as to the
continuance of the employee. We have read
and understood the broad principles laid
down in Satish Chandra Yadav (supra)
with the following crucial para in Avtar
Singh (Supra):

 "35. Suppression of "material"
information presupposes that what is
suppressed
that
"matters"
not
every
technical or trivial matter. The employer
has to act on due consideration of
rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of
powers in order to cancel candidature or
for terminating the services of employee.
Though a person who has suppressed the
material
information
cannot
claim
unfettered
right
for
appointment
or
continuity in service but he has a right not
to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of
power has to be in reasonable manner with
objectivity having due regard to facts of
cases.

17.
Further
with
respect
to
recruitment, on the post of Head Constable
and the Constables pursuant to Uttar
Pradesh
Police
Constable
and
Head
Constable Service Rule 2015, as amended
in the year 2017, a position akin to which is
emerging herein came up for consideration
before the Special Appellate Bench in
Special Appeal No.67 of 2023, Umesh
Chand vs. The State of U.P. and 3 others,
decided
on
24.03.2023,
wherein
the
following was observed:

 "Though, a specific query was
made to the learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel as to whether there exits
any other rule or guideline for rejecting the
candidature for recruitment of a candidate
the moment he is found implicated in
criminal
case,
however,
the
learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel while
inviting attention of the court towards
supplementary counter affidavit has only
referred to Rule 16 of the 2015 Rules so as
to contend that when adverse is found in
the character of a candidate then he is
declared unfit. There is no assertion in the
supplementary counter affidavit that the
Government Order dated 28.04.1958 has
either been superseded or it is not
applicable. In view of the stand taken by
the State-respondents as well as in absence
of any provisions of law being pointed
794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
before us, we have no option but to
presume that the Government Order dated
28.04.1958 is occupying the field providing
for the modalities of verification of
character of antecedents of Government
servants before their fresh appointment.
Once
the
Government
Order
dated
28.04.1958 provides that mere conviction
cannot
be
a
ground
to
withhold
appointment then in these circumstances
the case of the writ petitioner is to be
accorded fresh consideration particularly
in view of the fact that there was a
complete and full disclosure of the
pendency of the criminal case and also the
additional fact that he has not been
convicted by criminal court. "

18. As regards the reliance and the
reference so placed upon by the learned
Standing Counsel upon the judgment in
Anil Bhardwaj (supra) is concerned, there
is no quarrel to the proposition of law so
culled out herein but there is slight
distinction in the present case that is with
regard to existence of the Government
Order dated 21.05.1958 which applies with
full force and the same aids to the
provisions contained under Section 16 of
the U.P. Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil
Police) Service Rules 2015.

19. Though reliance has also been
placed upon the judgment in the case of
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam
Limited and Another Vs. Anil Kanwariya,
Civil Appeal Nos. 5743-5744 of 2021
decided on 17.09.2021, Union of India
and Others Vs. Methu Meda, Civil Appeal
No. 6238 of 2021 decided on 06.10.2021,
State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Chetan
Jeff reported in AIR 2022 (SC) 2274,
Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India
and Ors., Civil Appeal No.- 6955 of 2022
decided on 26.09.2022, Imtiyaz Ahmad
Malla Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and
Others, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 678
of 2021 decided on 28.02.2023 so as to
contend that mere disclosure of the
criminal case in the application form by a
candidate is one thing, but the same cannot
be a sole ground to accord issuance of
appointment
order
to
the
candidate,
particularly when, acquittal would not be of
any avail is concerned in Umesh Chand
(supra), the following was observed:-

 "Judgments relied upon by the
learned Chief Standing Counsel in the case
of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam
Limited (supra) is a case wherein the
employee did not disclose about the factum
of pendency of a criminal case which even
in fact dis-entitled him to be accorded
appointment though he was subsequently
acquitted as the question of trust intervened
and the employer was held to be legally
justified in not continuing the employee in
employment. Here in the present case there
is no allegation of non-disclosure or
concealment , thus the judgment in the case
of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam
Limited (supra) is distinguishable. So far as
the case of Methu Meda (supra) is
concerned the same is relatable to import
and impact of acquittal on the basis of
benefit of doubt. It was held that for
claiming appointment, in a criminal case
the acquittal should be honorable and not
the benefit of doubt. Similarly the case of
Chetan Jeff (supra) is also distinguishable
on the facts, particularly when in the said
case there was concealment and material
suppression of pendency of criminal case,
which is lacking the present case at hand.
With regard to reliance placed upon by the
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav
(supra) is concerned, the same is also not
applicable in the present case as in the said
11 All. Umesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
795
case the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that acquittal in a criminal case could not
automatically make entitled a candidate for
appointment to a post as still it would not
be open to the employer to consider
antecedents
whether
the
candidate
concerned
is
suitable
and
fit
for
appointment to the post. The judgment in
the case of Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla (supra) is
not also applicable as it was a case
wherein the candidate suppressed the
material fact of pendency of the criminal
case."

20. Thus, it can be safely said that
the matter needs to be revisited by the
appointing authority in the wake of the
intervening facts relating to acquittal of the
writ petitioner.

21. By saying so, this Court in
no manner whatsoever denudes the
appointing
authority
to
take
its
independent decision taking into account
the over all facts and situation including
the import and impact of the acquittal of
the writ petitioner while satisfying itself
incoming to the conclusion whether it
would
be
a
case
of
according
appointment or not. The said exercise is
to be undertaken by the appointing
authority on its own while dwelling upon
each and every aspect of the matter
within the four-corners of the Rules or
the Government order in force.

22. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed. The order dated 03.04.2023
passed by the Inspector General of Police,
Meerut Zone, Meerut is set aside. Matter
stands remitted back to the authority to pass
a fresh order strictly in accordance with law
within a period of three months from the
date of production of certified copy of the
order.
23. Passing of the order today
would not automatically accord issuance of
the appointment or reinstatement to the writ
petitioner as the same would be subject to
the orders which would be passed by the
authority pursuant to the direction of the
Court.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 795
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ - A No. 15283 of 2019

Umesh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Aishwarya Kumar Singh, Manish, Narendra
Kumar Chaturvedi, Rajesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Akhilesh Chandra Mishra, C.S.C., Gagan
Mehta, S.B. Singh, Shashank Bhushan
Pandey Chanchal

Issue for Consideration
Permissibility of claiming 62 years as age of
retirement as provided to the post of Librarian
on the ground that name of post of Deputy
Librarian was changed to Librarian.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Age of retirement -
Appointed on the post of Deputy Librarian
- Nomenclature of the post of Deputy
Librarian was changed to Librarian -
Claim of 62 years as age of retirement and
other consequential benefits as provided
to Librarian was made - Benefit was
claimed
on
the
basis
of
GO
dated
26.12.1998 - Permissibility :