# State of U.P. & Anr v. Dinesh Kumar

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 352
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-22
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 69 of 2025
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-anr-v-dinesh-kumar-53375
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Selection - Post of
Samiksha
Adhikari
-
Suppression
of
material information - Non-disclosure of
criminal case, when can be ignored -
Petitioner belongs to village background -
Effect - Held, while considering such
cases, the atmosphere prevailing in rural
villages should also be taken in account.
In our villages minor civil cases are given
5 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Dinesh Kumar
353
the colour of criminality and quite often
the accused persons are not even aware of
the fact that some criminal proceedings
were going on - Further held, we fail to
understand as to why a person would try
to deprive himself of his job and would
not
give
an
information
which
he
possessed. (Para 8)
Special Appeal dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI
Act on the legal issues like limitation, etc.
criminal complaint filed under Section 138
of the NI Act against Yogeshbhai ought not
to have been quashed merely on the ground
that there are inter se disputes between
Appellant 3 and Respondent 2. Without
keeping in view the statutory presumption
raised under Section 139 of the NI Act, the
High Court, in our view, committed a
serious error in quashing the criminal
complaint in CC No. 367 of 2016 filed
under Section 138 of the NI Act."

13. Bearing in mind the principles
for exercise of jurisdiction in a proceeding
for quashing, let us now turn to the
materials in this case. On careful reading of
the complaint and the order passed by the
Magistrate, what is discernible is that a
possible view is taken that the cheques
drawn were, in discharge of a debt for
purchase of shares. In any case, when there
is legal presumption, it would not be
judicious for the quashing Court to carry
out a detailed enquiry on the facts alleged,
without first permitting the trial Court to
evaluate the evidence of the parties. The
quashing Court should not take upon itself,
the burden of separating the wheat from the
chaff where facts are contested. To say it
differently, the quashing proceedings must
not become an expedition into the merits of
factual dispute, so as to conclusively
vindicate either the complainant or the
defence."

60. Yet in a recent decision the
Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Naresh
Potteries Vs. M/s Aarti Industries and
another SLP (Criminal) No. 8659 of 2023
decided on 02.01.2025 observed as under.-

" Apart from that, this Court has
repeatedly cautioned that the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
should be exercised sparingly and with
great caution and further that inherent
powers should not be used to interfere with
the jurisdiction of the lower courts or to
scuttle a fair investigation or prosecution."

61. Even otherwise cumulatively
analysing the case from four corners of
law, this Court is of the firm opinion that
the court below has not committed any
jurisdictional infirmity so as to warrant
interference in the present proceedings.

62.
Resultantly,
both
the
applications are dismissed. Interim order, if
any, stands vacated.
---------
(2025) 5 ILRA 352
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Special Appeal No. 69 of 2025

State of U.P. & Anr. ...Appellant
Versus
Dinesh Kumar ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
J.N. Maurya, Sudhanashu Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
Siddharth Khare

A. Service Law - Selection - Post of
Samiksha
Adhikari
-
Suppression
of
material information - Non-disclosure of
criminal case, when can be ignored -
Petitioner belongs to village background -
Effect - Held, while considering such
cases, the atmosphere prevailing in rural
villages should also be taken in account.
In our villages minor civil cases are given
5 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Dinesh Kumar
353
the colour of criminality and quite often
the accused persons are not even aware of
the fact that some criminal proceedings
were going on - Further held, we fail to
understand as to why a person would try
to deprive himself of his job and would
not
give
an
information
which
he
possessed. (Para 8)
Special Appeal dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. Avtar Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors.; (2016) 8 SCC
471
2. Writ A No. 16791 of 2023; Satyendra Singh
Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided on 9.1.2024
3. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd.
Vs Anil Kanwariya; (2021) 10 SCC 136
4. Ravindra Kumar Vs St. of Uttar Pradesh &
ors.; (2024) 5 SCC 264
(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.)

1. In response to an advertisement
issued by the Public Service Commission
dated 5.3.2021, the petitioner, who was a
Scheduled Caste candidate, applied for
being appointed on the post of Samiksha
Adhikari/Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari in
the Central Secretariat of the Public Service
Commission/Board of Revenue/office of
the Chief Election Officer. In response
thereof, the petitioner was allotted a Roll
Number being Roll No.217801. After
having participated in the examination
process, the final result of the selection was
published by a press notification dated
20.1.2023 wherein the petitioner was
shown as selected as Sahayak Samiksha
Adhikari and his name was shown at Serial
No.99 of the list of selected candidates. On
19.5.2023, the petitioner was required to
fill up a declaration/verification form and
was required to be medically examined by
the Chief Medical Officer, Sant Ravidas
Nagar. In response thereof, the petitioner
submitted his verification form on the
prescribed format on 31.5.2023. He was
also medically examined on 2.6.2023. After
having filled his verification form wherein
the petitioner had indicated that no criminal
proceeding had been undertaken against
him, he shortly thereafter realized his
mistake and therefore by an affidavit on
17.7.2023 informed the concerned officials
that there was a criminal case which was
registered against him by the police as Case
Crime No.198/2019 and thereafter was
being tried before the Court concerned as
Criminal Case No.271/2020. He had also
given the details of a Case Crime
No.215/2018 in which the petitioner was
never charge sheeted. Prior to the filing of
the affidavit on 17.7.2023, the result of the
petitioner had already been declared on
13.7.2023. When the final appointment
order was not being issued, the petitioner
had filed various representations and he
had also found that on 4.7.2023 the District
Magistrate as per the Government Order
dated 24.4.1958 had submitted his report
that the petitioner be issued a letter of
appointment which shall be subject to the
decision
of
the
Criminal
Case
No.271/2020.
However,
despite
the
recommendation made by the District
Magistrate, on 11.12.2023, the State
Government passed an order declining to
grant
appointment
to
the
petitioner.
Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner had filed a
writ petition being Writ-A No.817 of 2024.
When the writ petition was filed on
26.2.2024, this Court had directed the
learned
Standing
Counsel
to
seek
instructions specially with regard to the
filing of the affidavit dated 17.7.2023
which had been as per the petitioner filed
by him. The petitioner was also required to
file an affidavit submitting the proof of
filing of the affidavit dated 17.7.2023. The
writ petition was finally heard and decided
354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by this Court on 5.11.2024 whereby the
order dated 11.12.2023 of the Joint
Secretary,
Secretariat
Administration
Section-5 (Establishment), Government of
Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow was quashed and
the petitioner was required to be given an
appointment letter. Aggrieved thereof, the
State of Uttar Pradesh has filed the instant
Special Appeal.

2. Essentially, the Senior Counsel
Sri
Ajit
Singh,
learned
Additional
Advocate
General
assisted
by
Sri
Sudhanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for
the appellant submitted that the very fact
that
the
petitioner-respondent
had
concealed
the
information
about
the
pendency of a criminal case was itself
indicative of the fact that the petitioner had
not come with clean hands and that,
therefore, he could not be retained in
service as a Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari.
Learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that as per the guidelines which
the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India
& Ors. reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 had
provided,
the
following
issues
were
required to be looked into :-

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

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

c) The suppression of material
information and making a false statement
in the verification Form relating to arrest,
prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear
bearing on the character, conduct and
antecedents of the employee. If it is found
that the employee had suppressed or given
false information in regard to the matters
having a bearing on his fitness or suitability
to the post, he can be terminated from
service.
 d) The generalisations about the
youth, career prospects and age of the
candidates leading to condonation of the
offenders' conduct, should not enter the
judicial verdict and should be avoided.

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

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

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

3. The above principles which were
to be, as per learned counsel for the
appellant, made applicable while deciding
as to whether a candidate ought to be
appointed despite his non-disclosure of
criminal cases was further considered in the
judgment of Satyendra Singh vs. State of
U.P. & Ors. (Writ-A No.16791 of 2023,
decided on 9.1.2024). Learned counsel for
the
appellant
further
relied
upon
a
judgment of the Supreme Court in
Rajasthan
Rajya
Vidyut
Prasaran
Nigam Ltd. vs. Anil Kanwariya : (2021)
10 SCC 136 and heavily relied upon
5 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Dinesh Kumar
355
paragraph 14 of that judgment, which is
being reproduced here as under :-

 "The
issue/question
may
be
considered from another angle, from the
employer's point of view. The question is
not about whether an employee was
involved in a dispute of trivial nature and
whether he has been subsequently acquitted
or not. The question is about the credibility
and/or trustworthiness of such an employee
who at the initial stage of the employment,
i.e.,
while
submitting
the
declaration/verification and/or applying for
a post made false declaration and/or not
disclosing and/or suppressing material fact
of having involved in a criminal case. If the
correct facts would have been disclosed,
the employer might not have appointed
him. Then the question is of TRUST.
Therefore, in such a situation, where the
employer feels that an employee who at the
initial stage itself has made a false
statement and/or not disclosed the material
facts and/or suppressed the material facts
and therefore he cannot be continued in
service because such an employee cannot
be relied upon even in future, the employer
cannot be forced to continue such an
employee. The choice/option whether to
continue or not to continue such an
employee always must be given to the
employer. At the cost of repetition, it is
observed and as observed hereinabove in
catena of decision such an employee cannot
claim the appointment and/or continue to
be in service as a matter of right."

4. By quoting the above paragraph,
learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that when a particular candidate did not
disclose about the pendency of criminal
cases or about the criminal cases which had
already been decided then the question was
about the credibility or trustworthiness of
such an employee who had made a false
declaration at the very initial stage of his
employment and, therefore, learned counsel
for the appellant submits that the petitionerrespondent could not be, therefore, trusted
to become an employee of the appellant.

5.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent Sri Siddharth Khare, however,
relying upon the judgment of Avtar Singh
(supra) submitted that in the instant case,
the Court had to, as a matter of fact, see
what kind of information had been
concealed
from
the
employers.
He
submitted that the suppression of "material
information" would pre-suppose that not
every suppression would be considered as
material. Materials which are extremely
technical or are of trivial nature, if are not
disclosed then it would not amount to
concealment
of
material
information.
Since, learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon paragraphs 35 to 38 of the
judgment of Avtar Singh (supra) the same
are being reproduced here as under :-

"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
356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rigorous criteria for all services, not only to
uniformed service. For lower posts 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.

37.
The
"McCarthyism"
is
antithesis to constitutional goal, chance of
reformation has to be afforded to young
offenders in suitable cases, interplay of
reformative theory cannot be ruled out in
toto nor can be generally applied but is one
of the factors to be taken into consideration
while exercising the power for cancelling
candidature or discharging an employee
from service.

38. We have noticed various
decisions and tried to explain and reconcile
them as far as possible. In view of the
aforesaid discussion, we summarize 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
5 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Dinesh Kumar
357
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 suppressioveri or suggestio falsi,
knowledge of the fact must be attributable
to him."

6.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner while referring to this judgment,
also referred to a judgment of the Supreme
Court in Ravindra Kumar vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Ors. : (2024) 5 SCC 264
and he submitted that non-disclosure of just
any and every information would not be a
disqualification as it would tantamount to
being completely oblivious to the ground
realities of our country. He submitted that
each case would depend on the facts and
circumstances which would prevail and that
the Court would have to take a holistic
view and would have to look at every case
individually and objectively. Since, learned
counsel for the petitioner relied upon
paragraph 34 of the judgment, the same is
being reproduced here as under :-

"On the facts of the case and in
the backdrop of the special circumstances
set out hereinabove, where does the nondisclosure of the unfortunate criminal case,
(which too ended in acquittal), stand in the
scheme of things? In our opinion on the
peculiar facts of the case, we do not think it
can be deemed fatal for the appellant.
Broad-brushing every non-disclosure as a
disqualification, will be unjust and the
same will tantamount to being completely
oblivious to the ground realities obtaining
in this great, vast and diverse country. Each
case will depend on the facts and
circumstances that prevail thereon, and the
court will have to take a holistic view,
based on objective criteria, with the
available precedents serving as a guide. It
can never be a one size fits all scenario."

7.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner-respondent further submitted that
in the instant case, the Criminal Case
No.215/2018 never saw the light of the day
inasmuch as the petitioner was not chargesheeted after investigation. However, with
regard to Case Crime No.198/2019 which
was tried as Criminal Case No.205/2020
under sections 147, 323, 504, 506 and 325
IPC was in fact a case which was
absolutely of a civil nature and it had only
been given a colour of criminality. He
submitted that even if the averments made
in the FIR were seen, they went to indicate
that it was with regard to the damaging of
some boundary wall and the accused
358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
therein had been alleged to have beaten the
complainants and had also abused them.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner,
therefore, stated that there was every
possibility that the petitioner, who was a
lay man and was not very abreast with the
laws of the land, had thought that it was
only a civil case which was going on. To
bolster his argument, learned counsel for
the petitioner had stated that since the case
was under very minor sections i.e. under
sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC to begin
with and that only after investigation the
section 325 IPC was added, the petitioner
had in fact never remained in jail and that
he was without being arrested released on
bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner
stated that in our country in the villages,
small scuffles do keep on taking place and
they, though are given the colour of
criminality, are of such a nature that the
parties continue to believe that they were
only civil cases. Learned counsel for the
petitioner-respondent has also submitted
that there was also a compromise entered
into on 19.2.2024 and the petitioner in fact
must have been under the mistaken belief
that actually a civil case, because of the
compromise, would come to an end.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also
submitted that even if the judgment in the
Criminal Case No.271/2020 was seen, it
would become apparent that there was
absolutely
no
evidence
against
the
petitioner and the other co-accused and in
fact the PW-1, he submits, though in his
examination-in-chief had supported the
version of the FIR but during the trial he
had categorically stated that there was only
verbal altercation and thereafter in the dark
when a wild animal went past the place
where the accused and the complainants
had collected, there was a bit of confusion
and, therefore, the PW-1 had fallen down
and had received a head injury. Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner,
therefore,
submitted that the case of the petitioner was
squarely covered under paragraph 38.4.1 of
the judgment of Avtar Singh (supra)
inasmuch as the incident which had given
rise to the criminal case had in fact been
understood to be of a purely civil nature.
He submits that the petitioner had in fact
thought that there was a compromise also
in the case and that compromises took
place in only civil cases. Learned counsel
for the petitioner also submitted that since
the prosecution/complainants were not
pursuing the case very aggressively, the
petitioner who was a rustic villager and
belonged to scheduled caste, was under the
impression that in fact some civil litigation
was going on. Learned counsel for the
petitioner still further relying upon the
judgment of Ravindra Singh (supra)
submitted that since the petitioner belonged
to rural background, it was not expected of
him to give every detail of the case which
he actually thought was of a civil nature.
He further submits that apart from the fact
that the petitioner was always under the
impression that there was a civil case, the
incident was of a very trivial nature.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also
stated that when after having consulted
certain people of the village, the petitioner
had realized that the case was in fact to be
declared as a criminal case then he had
filed an affidavit on 17.7.2023 declaring
that he had been implicated in certain
criminal cases. He also submits that with
regard to the filing of the affidavit also
there was no denial and that it was never
considered before the passing of the
impugned order.

8. Having heard learned Senior
Counsel for the appellant Sri Ajit Kumar
Singh assisted by Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava
and learned counsel for the respondent-
5 All. Devendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
359
petitioner Sri Siddharth Khare, we
are of the considered view that the
petitioner who was a scheduled caste
candidate and was belonging to a village
background though was involved in a
criminal case, there was every possibility
after looking at the nature of the case that
the petitioner had thought that he was
involved only in a civil case. We are also of
the view that while considering such cases,
the atmosphere prevailing in rural villages
should also be taken in account. In our
villages minor civil cases are given the
colour of criminality and quite often the
accused persons are not even aware of the
fact that some criminal proceedings were
going on. Quite often times when there are
many co-accused persons in a particular
case then the case is just looked after by
one of the co-accused. In the instant case,
there were as many as seven co-accused
and there was every possibility that one of
the co-accused was looking after the case.
From the record, we also find that the
petitioner had informed the employers
about the pendency of the criminal case and
this fact had not been denied by the
appellants. We fail to understand as to why
a person would try to deprive himself of his
job and would not give an information
which he possessed. In the instant case, an
information of a trivial nature was not
given out in the verification form and
subsequently, however, that information
was provided.

9. Thus, in view of what has been
stated
above,
we
are
in
respectful
agreement with the view taken by the
learned Single Judge. We refrain ourselves
from interfering in this Special Appeal and
the Special Appeal is thus, accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 359
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Special Appeal No. 167 of 2024
With
Special Appeal No. 200 of 2024

Devendra Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Siddharth Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Yogesh Kumar Saxena

A. Service Law - Termination - Post of
Assistant Teacher - Termination order
was passed as appointment was made on
excess
post
-
High
Court
stayed
termination
and
during
the
course
absorption was made on existing post -
Irregularity in earlier appointment, how
far
effect
absorption
-
Held,
the
appellants having been absorbed on
existing vacancies, the irregularity, if
any initially in their appointments,
would be deemed to have been cured -
Mansaram's
case
and
Madras
Aluminium Comp. Ltd.'s case relied
upon. (Para 14)

Special Appeal allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:
1. Radhey Shyam Yadav & anr.Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.; 2024 SCC OnLine SC
2. Vinod Kumar & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors.; (2024)
9 SCC 327
3. Jaggo Vs U.O.I. & ors.; 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3826