# Sri Manohar Lal v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 2 ILRA 477
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-04-21
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35150 of 1998
- **Bench:** Shishir Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-manohar-lal-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40477
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226-Service
Law-Right to appointment-Petitionerqualifying in Test for the post of
Constable-in R.P.F.-but found guilty of
false declaration about the criminal
cases-inspite of specific column provided
in application form-held-not entitled for
appointment.

Held: Para 12

After hearing counsel for the parties and
after perusal of the record and after
consideration of various judgments of
the Apex Court as well as this Court, it is
clear that the petitioner has concealed
the facts regarding the criminal case,
which
were
pending
against
the
petitioner and has not given the correct
information in the declaration form,
though there was a specific column
regarding pendency of any criminal case
whether it is pending or whether it was
pending and whether the petitioner has
been acquitted or not. The petitioner has
clearly concealed this fact, as such, he is
not entitled for any relief.
Case law discussed:
1997 SCC-492
AIR 1999 SCC-2326
1998 (1) ESC-778
2001 ESC- Raj. 1837 (GB)
J.T. 2003 (2) SC-256

## Text

2 All] Sri Manohar Lal V. State of U.P. and others

 477
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.4.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35150 of 1998

Dhananjai Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
Mukhya Suraksha Ayukt (Chief Security
commissioner) R.P.F., N.E.R. Gorakhpur
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.P. Srivastava
Sri Namwar Singh
Sri Sanjiv Singh
Sri S.N. Yadav
Sri Sharad Yadav
Sri D.V. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Lal Ji Sinha

Constitution of India, Article 226-Service
Law-Right to appointment-Petitionerqualifying in Test for the post of
Constable-in R.P.F.-but found guilty of
false declaration about the criminal
cases-inspite of specific column provided
in application form-held-not entitled for
appointment.

Held: Para 12

After hearing counsel for the parties and
after perusal of the record and after
consideration of various judgments of
the Apex Court as well as this Court, it is
clear that the petitioner has concealed
the facts regarding the criminal case,
which
were
pending
against
the
petitioner and has not given the correct
information in the declaration form,
though there was a specific column
regarding pendency of any criminal case
whether it is pending or whether it was
pending and whether the petitioner has
been acquitted or not. The petitioner has
clearly concealed this fact, as such, he is
not entitled for any relief.
Case law discussed:
1997 SCC-492
AIR 1999 SCC-2326
1998 (1) ESC-778
2001 ESC- Raj. 1837 (GB)
J.T. 2003 (2) SC-256

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

1. By means of the present writ
petition, petitioner has approached this
Court for issuing a writ of certiorari
quashing the impugned order dated
3.1.2000 passed by the respondent No.1
and for issuing a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents not
to give effect to the order dated 3.1.2000.

2. The fact arising out of the present
writ petition, is that the petitioner was
selected
as
constable
in
Railway
Protection
Force,
Northern
Eastern
Railway in the pay scale of Rs.825-1200
by the Recruitment Committee constituted
under Rule 49.2 of the Railway Protection
Rules 1957. A written test and interview
was held in the month of July, 1997 in
pursuance of the advertisement of the
respondent No.2. The petitioner was
selected and directed to be present himself
on 20.9.1997. The petitioner was directed
to fill up the required form before the
appointment subject to verification by the
police authorities about the character of
the petitioner under Rules 52.1 and 52.2
of Railway Protection Force Rules. The
petitioner
appeared
for
medical
examination and was found fit for
appointment. A physical fitness certificate
dated 19.9.1997 was also issued and the
petitioner was required to fill up the form
and there were various clauses to be filled
up by the petitioner. Petitioner was
478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
assured that after the verification of the
character of the petitioner as provided, the
appointment letter will be issued. When
the respondent issued appointment letter
to the respective selected candidates for
training and posting, but no appointment
letter was issued in favour of the
petitioner then the petitioner had enquired
into the matter and then it came to the
knowledge of the petitioner that the
appointment of the petitioner has been
cancelled on the ground that certain
criminal cases were pending and the
petitioner has not disclosed this fact in the
declaration form, as such, the selection of
the petitioner has been cancelled. The
petitioner submitted a representation, but
no orders were passed as the petitioner
has been found fit for selection to the post
of constable and on the basis of the
medical
examination,
the
petitioner
cannot be denied training simply because
one criminal case of frivolous in nature
instituted on account of personal enmity
were pending against the petitioner. It has
also been submitted that the reports of the
District Magistrate, Jaunpur and the
Superintendent of Police have not found
the character of the petitioner satisfactory
as contemplated by Clause 18, therefore,
the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed
by Sri Chandra Shekhar Rajan, who was
working as Principal, Training Centre,
Railway Protection Force, Gorakhpur,
annexing therewith declaration form as
Annexure 1 to the said counter affidavit
and has submitted that as there was
requirement under Clause 12(1)( )( )
regarding pendency of any criminal case
or whether any criminal case was pending
against the petitioner at any point of time
or the petitioner was ever detained by the
Civil Police, as thus the specific columns
were there and the petitioner has not
disclosed correct facts. Subsequently, on
the basis of the investigation regarding
verification of the character of the
petitioner, it was found that various cases
were pending against the petitioner
bearing Crime no.24 of 1994 under
sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 307,
324, 504 and 506 I.P.C. another case
No.301of 1995 under sections 328, 504,
506 I.P.C. and Case Crime No.302 of
1995 under section 25 of Arms Act and
another Case Crime No.512 of 1995
under section 314 of Goonda Act. It has
been
submitted
on
behalf
of
the
respondents that as the petitioner has not
declared the correct information and has
concealed the fact, therefore, he was
denied the appointment.

4. The counsel for the respondents
Sri Lalji Sinha has placed reliance upon a
judgment of the Supreme Court reported
in 1997 Supreme Court Cases ( Labour
and Service) 492 Delhi Administration
through its Chief Secretary and others
Vs. Sushil Kumar. The Apex has held
that "Verification of the character and
antecedents is one of the important
criteria to test whether the selected
candidate is suitable to a post under the
State. Though the respondent was found
physically fit, passed the written test and
interview and was provisionally selected,
on account of his antecedent record, the
appointing
authority
found
it
not
desirable to appoint a person of such
record as a Constable in the disciplined
force. The view taken by the appointing
authority in the background of the case
cannot be said to be unwarranted. The
Tribunal,
therefore,
was
wholly
unjustified in giving the direction for
reconsideration of his case. Though he
was discharged or acquitted of the
2 All] Dhananjai Singh V. Mukhya Surakash Ayukt, R.P.F. and others

 479
criminal offences, the same has nothing to
do with the question. What would be
relevant is the conduct on character of the
candidate to be appointed to a service
and not the actual result thereof. If the
actual result happened to be in a
particular way, the law will take care of
the consequences.
 Appeal allowed."

5. Another decision, which has been
relied upon by the respondents, is the
judgment rendered in Special Appeal No.
730 of 2003 Shyam Bihari Singh Vs. The
Union of India through Ministry of
Railways, Government of India, New
Delhi, and others and has submitted that
admittedly a criminal case was pending
against the petitioner at the time when the
form was filled up and the same was not
disclosed. In fact, after selection the
petitioner never disclosed the information
regarding pendency of the criminal case
and it came to the knowledge of the
authority after verification, as there was
concealment regarding the declaration, as
such, accordingly, his selection deserved
cancellation.

6. On the other hand, the petitioner
has placed reliance upon a judgment
reported in A.I.R.1999 Supreme Court
2326 Commissisoner of Police, Delhi
and another Vs. Dhaval Singh, and has
submitted that the candidate alleged to
have concealed from mentioning in
application form against relevant columns
about pendency of criminal case against
him. Candidate, however, voluntarily
conveyed that inadvertent mistake had
been committed and has submitted that he
was acquitted by the Trial Court. The
aforesaid information has not been taken
note of by competent authority, therefore,
the Apex Court has held that cancellation
of candidature is without application of
mind.

7. The petitioner has also placed
reliance upon a judgment of this Court
reported in (1998) 1 E.S.C. 778 Ramesh
Versus
Chief
Secretary
Commissioner/Railway
Protection
Force, N.E. Railway Gorakhpur and
another and decision in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No.10256 of 2000 Uma Shankar
Vs. State of U.P. and others. It has also
been submitted by the petitioner that as
the petitioner has already been acquitted,
therefore, the respondent cannot cancel
the appointment of the petitioner.

8. A similar type of controversy has
arisen before this Court and the Apex
Court in various cases. In a Division
Bench of this Court in Special Appeal
No.1075 of 2002, has held that while
entering into service if a person has not
disclosed about the criminal cases and
deliberately concealed the aforesaid facts,
and after verification of the said fact, it
has
came
to
light,
therefore,
the
cancellation of appointment is valid and
cannot be said to be illegal.

9. A similar controversy has already
been decided by this Court in Civil
Misc.Writ Petition No.24341of 2001
Nagendra Kumar Vs. Union of India,
through its Secretary Ministry of Home
New Delhi and others. This Court has
held that question before this Court is
whether a person joining the armed force
of the Union, can be allowed to continue
in employment after making a false
declaration, though he was discharged in
acquittal in criminal case. In Delhi
Administration Vs. Sushil Kumar and
others (Supra), a similar question was
raised before Supreme Court arising out
480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
of the judgment of Central Administrative
Tribunal. In this case admitted position
was that the respondent appeared for
recruitment for police service. He was
found physically fit and passed in written
test, interview and was selected subject to
character and antecedent verification.
These antecedents on verification were
not found desirable and his selection was
cancelled. The Tribunal allowed the
application on the ground that since the
respondent had been discharged and/or
acquitted from offence punishable under
sections 304, 324 and 34 I.P.C., he could
not be denied right of appointment to the
post under the State. Thereafter Supreme
Court allowed the appeal, with following
observations:

"The question is whether the view
taken by the Tribunal is correct in law? It
is seen that verification of the character
and antecedent is one of the important
criteria to test whether the selected
candidate is suitable to a post under the
State. Though he was found physically fit,
passed the written test and interview and
was provisionally selected, on account of
his antecedent record, the important
criteria to test whether the selected
candidate is suitable to a post under the
appointing
authority
found
it
not
desirable to appoint a person of such
record as a Constable to the disciplined
force. The view taken by the appointing
authority in the background of the case
cannot be said to be unwarranted. The
Tribunal,
therefore,
was
wholly
unjustified in giving the direction for
reconsideration of his case. Though he
was discharged or acquitted of the
criminal offences, the same has nothing to
do with the question. What would be
relevant is the conduct or character of the
candidate to be appointed to a service
and not the actual result thereof. If the
actual result happened to be in a
particular way, the law will take care of
the consequences. The consideration
relevant to the case is of the antecedents
of the candidate. Appointing authority,
therefore, has rightly focused this aspect
and found it not desirable to appoint him
to the service."

10. In case of 2001 E.S.C.
Rajasthan Full Bench, 1837 Dharam Pal
Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, it has been
held that if an appointment of police
constable obtained on suppression of fact
that he was prosecuted or subjected to
investigation on a criminal charge, though
acquitted of such charges, it has been held
that he has not been entitled for
appointment. The employer would be
empowered to deny employment of
candidate of such kind of character.

11. In case of Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan and others Vs. Ram Ratan
Yadav, Judgment Today, 2003 (2)
Supreme Court 256, the Apex Court has
clearly
held
that
false
declaration
regarding involvement in criminal cases
in attestation of form for obtaining
employment if the correct information
and making a false statement had a clear
bearing on the character and antecedents
of the respondent in relation to his
continuance
in
service.
Since
the
information was sought with a view to
judge the character and antecedents,
therefore, denial of appointment is valid.
The Supreme Court has further held "The
purpose of seeking information as per
columns 12 and 13 was not to find out
either the nature of gravity of the offence
or the result of a criminal case ultimately.
The information in the said columns was
sought with a view to Judge the character
2 All] Dhananjai Singh V. Mukhya Surakash Ayukt, R.P.F. and others

 481
and antecedents of the respondent to
continue in service or not. The High
Court, in our view, has failed to see this
aspect of the matter. It went wrong in
saying that the criminal case had been
subsequently withdrawn and that the
offences, in which the respondent was
alleged to have been involved, were also
not of serious nature. In the present case
the respondent was to serve as a Physical
Education teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya.
The character, conduct and antecedent of
a teacher will have some impact on the
minds of the students of impressionable
age. The appellants having considered
all the aspects passed the order of
dismissal of the respondent from service.
The Tribunal after due consideration
rightly recorded a finding of fact in
upholding the order of dismissal passed
by the appellants. The High Court was
clearly in error in upsetting the order of
the Tribunal. The High Court was again
not right in taking note of the withdrawal
of the case by the State Government and
that the case was not of a serious nature
to set aside the order of the Tribunal on
that ground as well. The respondent
accepted the offer of appointment subject
to the terms and conditions mentioned
therein with his eyes wide open. Para 9 of
the said memorandum extracted above in
clear terms kept the respondent informed
that the suppression of any information
may lead to dismissal from service. In the
attestation form, the respondent has
certified that the information given by him
is correct and complete to the best of his
knowledge and belief, if he could not
understand the contents of column nos. 12
and 13, he could not certify so. Having
certified that the information given by him
is correct and complete his version cannot
be accepted. The order of termination of
services clearly shows that there has been
due consideration of various aspects."

12. After hearing counsel for the
parties and after perusal of the record and
after consideration of various judgments
of the Apex Court as well as this Court, it
is clear that the petitioner has concealed
the facts regarding the criminal case,
which were pending against the petitioner
and has not given the correct information
in the declaration form, though there was
a specific column regarding pendency of
any criminal case whether it is pending or
whether it was pending and whether the
petitioner has been acquitted or not. The
petitioner has clearly concealed this fact,
as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

The writ petition is devoid of merits
and is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.
Petition Dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.5.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 4477 of 2005

Badan Singh

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite party

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashutosh Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 39,
readwith
section
176
of
I.P.C.-
Application u/s 156 (3) rejected on the