# Umesh Chand Yadav v. The I.G. and Chief Security Comm. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 1 ILRA 211
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-01-20
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 1575 of 2016
- **Bench:** Amit Sthalekar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/umesh-chand-yadav-v-the-i-g-and-chief-security-comm-ors-43409
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India-Art.-226-Service LawPetitioner
being
selected
on
post
of
constable in RPF-during training period on
its
own
filed
affidavit
regarding
involvement in criminal case as well as
discharged
by
CJM-much
prior
to
advertisement-dismissal
order-treating
concealment of this fact in verification
forum-not available-even non consideration
of eligibility-order illegal-quashed-direction
for reconsideration keeping in view of Ram
Kumar Gupta case-given.
212
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Held: Para-9
In my opinion in the present case the
judgement of the High Court in the case of
Ram Kumar (supra) squarely applies. The
respondents while passing the impugned
order cancelling the candidature of the
petitioner have not taken into consideration
the question of eligibility of the petitioner or
the fact that he had himself at the time of
being sent for training filed an affidavit
disclosing the fact that he had been
involved in a criminal case and discharged
as far back as in 2001.
Case Law discussed:
Civil Appeal No. 7106 of 2011; Civil Appeal No.
3470 of 2008; Special Appeal No. 181 of 2015

## Text

1 All. Umesh Chand Yadav Vs. The I.G. and Chief Security Comm. & Ors.
211
founded and needs no authority in support
thereof. In that view of the matter, in our
considered opinion, the High Court was not
right in dismissing the petition in limine even
without issuing notice to the respondents.
30.

Retiral
benefits
are
the
accumulated savings of a lifetime of
service of a Government servants. In a
large number of cases, the retiral benefits
are the only source of livelihood and
means of survival not only for the retired
Government servant but for his entire
family. If the retirel benefits are not paid
in time, the very survival of the retired
employee and his family members comes
under question. The respondents should
realise that the delay in payment of the
retiral dues of a retired Government
servant may have a devastating effect on
the lives of the retired Government
servant and his family causing untold
hardship. In the matter of grant of retiral
benefits
to
the
retired
government
servants, the respondents are expected to
be alive to the problem of the retired
employee and are expected to strictly
adhere to the time-schedule prescribed.
31. In the facts and circumstances
mentioned above, we are of the firm
opinion that there is no justification on the
part of the contesting respondents for the
inordinate delay in processing the pension
papers of the petitioner. The claim of the
petitioner for interest on delayed payment
of his retiral benefits is, thus, upheld.
32.
In view of the above, this writ
petition is allowed. The respondents are
directed to calculate and make payment of
interest on the delayed payment of gratuity
to the petitioner, as per the G.O.'s
06.12.1994 & 15.07.1997. The respondents
are further directed to calculate and pay to
the petitioner interest on the delayed
payment of other retiral dues @ 12% per
annum from the date the same became due,
till the time of its actual payment. The
respondents shall ensure that the actual
payment is made to the petitioner within
30 days from the date of this order, failing
which, the entire payable amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of this order. The
respondents shall be expected to hold
necessary inquiry/inquiries to fix the
responsibility for delay and defaults in this
matter and to take further necessary action
against the erring officers/employees in
accordance with law.
-------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.01.2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMIT STHALEKAR, J.
Writ-A No. 1575 of 2016
Umesh Chand Yadav
 ...Petitioner
Versus
The I.G. and Chief Security Comm. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajeev Chaddha
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sudhir Bharti
Constitution of India-Art.-226-Service LawPetitioner
being
selected
on
post
of
constable in RPF-during training period on
its
own
filed
affidavit
regarding
involvement in criminal case as well as
discharged
by
CJM-much
prior
to
advertisement-dismissal
order-treating
concealment of this fact in verification
forum-not available-even non consideration
of eligibility-order illegal-quashed-direction
for reconsideration keeping in view of Ram
Kumar Gupta case-given.
212
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Held: Para-9
In my opinion in the present case the
judgement of the High Court in the case of
Ram Kumar (supra) squarely applies. The
respondents while passing the impugned
order cancelling the candidature of the
petitioner have not taken into consideration
the question of eligibility of the petitioner or
the fact that he had himself at the time of
being sent for training filed an affidavit
disclosing the fact that he had been
involved in a criminal case and discharged
as far back as in 2001.
Case Law discussed:
Civil Appeal No. 7106 of 2011; Civil Appeal No.
3470 of 2008; Special Appeal No. 181 of 2015
(Delivered by Hon'ble Amit Sthalekar, J.)
1. Supplementary affidavit filed
today is taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Rajeev Chaddha, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sudhir
Bharti, learned counsel for the respondents. .
3. The petitioner is seeking quashing
of the order dated 19.2.2015 whereby his
candidature for the post of Constable
recruit has been cancelled on the ground
that he has submitted false attestation
form with regard to criminal case.
4. The facts which are not in dispute
between the parties are that the petitioner
applied for the post of Constable in the
Railway
Protection
Force.
In
the
attestation form he was required to
disclose as to whether he has ever been
arrested or prosecuted or kept under
detention. The petitioner did not fill this
part of the attestation form. However, at
the time of training he himself filed
affidavit, Annexure-5 to the writ petition,
stating that he was involved in a criminal
case under section 465/468/471 I.P.C. in
district Gorakhpur and case crime no. 15
of 2000 had been registered against him
but he was discharged by the order of the
A.C.J.M. Gorakhpur dated 15.1.2001,
Annexure-6 to the writ petition.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that it was never the intention of the
petitioner to withhold any information from
the respondents in that though due to error he
had omitted to fill up the requisite application
form disclosing the criminal proceedings
against him but at the very first instance at
the time of training he had filed his own
affidavit disclosing these facts without even
same being called for by the respondents. In
support of his contention, learned counsel
has placed reliance upon the judgement of
the Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal
No. 7106 of 2011 (Ram Kumar Vs. State of
U.P. and others) wherein also the petitioner
had applied for the post of Constable and
omitted to fill up his attestation application
regarding pendency of criminal case against
him. In that case the facts were that in the
criminal case the petitioner therein had been
acquitted and therefore he did not think it
necessary to state the said case regarding
involvement in a criminal case in his
attestation form. When these facts were
discovered his appointment was cancelled.
Referring to the facts of the case, the
Supreme Court held that the facts on which
the petitioner/appellant had been acquitted
was not examined by the S.S.P. Ghaziabad
as to whether they were of serious nature or
whether on the grounds mentioned therein
the petitioner may be ineligible for
appointment and accordingly the impugned
order of cancellation of appointment of the
petitioner therein was quashed by the
Supreme Court. Paragraphs 7,8,9 and 10 of
the said judgement read as under:
" 7. In the facts of the present case, we
find that though Criminal Case No.275 of
1 All. Umesh Chand Yadav Vs. The I.G. and Chief Security Comm. & Ors.
213
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 18.07.2002 by the
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Etawah. On a reading of the order dated
18.07.2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate would show that the sole witness
examined before the Court, PW-1 Mr.
Akhilesh Kumar, had deposed before the
Court that on 02.12.2000 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.
8. The order dated 18.07.2002 of the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had
been sent along with the report dated
15.01.2007 of the Jaswant Nagar Police
Station to the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Ghaziabad, but it appears from
the order dated 08.08.2007 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 proforma of verification roll that a
criminal case has been registered against
him. As has been stated in the instructions
in
the
Government
Order
dated
28.04.1958, it was the duty of the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, as
the appointing authority, to satisfy himself
on the point as to whether the appellant
was suitable for appointment to the post
of a constable, with reference to the
nature of suppression and nature of the
criminal case. Instead of considering
whether the appellant was suitable for
appointment to the post of male constable,
the appointing authority has mechanically
held that his selection was irregular and
illegal
because
the
appellant
had
furnished an affidavit stating the facts
incorrectly at the time of recruitment.
9. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
and Others v. Ram Ratan Yadav (supra)
relied on by the respondents, a criminal
case had been registered under Sections
323, 341, 294, 506-B read with Section 34
IPC and was pending against the
respondent
in
that
case
and
the
respondent had suppressed this material
in the attestation form. The respondent,
however, contended that the criminal case
was subsequently withdrawn and the
offences in which the respondent was
alleged to have been involved were also
not of serious nature. On these facts, this
Court held that the respondent was to
serve as a Physical Education Teacher in
Kendriya Vidyalaya and he could not be
suitable for appointment as the character,
conduct and antecedents of a teacher will
have some impact on the minds of the
students of impressionable age and if the
authorities had dismissed him from
service
for
suppressing
material
information in the attestation form, the
decision of the authorities could not be
interfered with by the High Court.
The facts of the case in Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Ram
214
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Ratan Yadav (supra) are therefore
materially different from the facts of the
present case and the decision does not
squarely cover the case of the appellant
as has been held by the High Court.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, we
allow the appeal, set aside the order of
the learned Single Judge and the
impugned order of the Division Bench
and allow the writ petition of the
appellant and quash the order dated
08.08.2007 of the Senior Superintendent
of Police, Ghaziabad. The appellant will
be taken back in service within a period of
two months from today but he will not be
entitled to any back wages for the period
he has remained out of service. There
shall be no order as to costs."
6. Shri Sudhir Bharti, learned
counsel for the respondents on the other
hand has placed reliance upon another
judgement of the Supreme Court passed
in Civil Appeal No. 3470 of 2008 (Union
of India Vs. Bipad Bhanjan Gayen)
wherein the Supreme Court has held that
non disclosure of information regarding
pendency of criminal case under section
376 and 417 I.P.C. in the attestation form
was a deliberate attempt by the petitioner
to conceal material fact from the
respondents. In that case it is noticed that
the criminal case against the petitioner
was still pending in the court at the time
when the petitioner Bipad Bhanjan Gayen
had filled the attestation form and,
therefore, the Supreme Court held that it
was a case of deliberate concealment of
material fact by the petitioner from the
respondents while filling the attestation
form. Therefore, in my view the aforesaid
judgement of the Supreme Court was on
its own facts and has no application to the
facts of the present case.
7. The next case relied upon by the
learned counsel for the respondents is the
decision of the Division Bench of this
Court in Special Appeal No. 181 of 2015
(Veer Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 3
others) and in that case also the facts as
emerging in paragraph 8 of the judgement
are that the appellant had applied for
recruitment in pursuance of advertisement
dated 2.5.2006 as a Constable in the PAC.
Before he applied for selection a case
Crime No. 136 of 2004 had been
registered against him under sections 323,
452, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and a charge
sheet had also been filed on 10.8.2004.
When
the
appellant
applied
for
recruitment he expressly stated that no
criminal case had been registered against
him and that no prosecution was pending
against him in any court. He was selected
on 28.8.2006 . On 31.8.2006 he applied
for and was granted bail by the court of
C.J.M. The judgement of acquittal was
rendered by the C.J.M. on 27.8.2007. The
Division Bench held that from these facts
it cannot be even disputed that the
disclosures which the appellant made
when he sought appointment as a
Constable were palpably false and that he
had suppressed the material fact relating
to the pendency of the criminal case
against him. Paragraph 8 of the judgement
reads as under:
"The facts in the present case are
not in dispute. The appellant applied for
recruitment
in
pursuance
of
an
advertisement dated 2 May 2006 as a
Constable in the PAC. Admittedly,
before he applied for selection, Case
Crime No.136 of 2004 had been
registered against him under Sections
323, 452, 504 and 506 of the IPC and a
charge sheet had been filed on 10
August 2004. Again, it is not in dispute
1 All. Shreyas Gramin Bank & Anr. Vs. Smt. Kasturi Devi
215
that when he applied for recruitment,
the appellant expressly stated that no
criminal case had been registered
against him and that no prosecution was
pending against him in any Court. When
he filed an affidavit, the appellant also
undertook that if his disclosures were
found to be incorrect or, if he was found
to have materially suppressed any true
facts,
his
selection
would
stand
cancelled
and
that
he
would
be
terminated from service without notice.
The appellant was selected on 28
August 2006. It is his specific case in
the
submissions
of
Counsel
that
thereafter on 31 August 2006 he applied
for and was granted bail by the Court of
the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The
judgment of acquittal was rendered by
the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 27
August 2007. From these facts, it cannot
not even be disputed that the disclosures
which the appellant made when he
sought appointment as a Constable were
palpably
false
and
that
he
had
suppressed a material fact relating to
the pendency of the criminal case
against him. The appellant was clearly
on notice that his appointment was
liable to be terminated and the selection
would be cancelled if his disclosures
were found to be incorrect and if there
was a suppression of material facts."
8. The judgment of the Division
Bench in the case of Veer Pal Singh
(supra) is on its own facts and has
absolutely no application to the facts of
the present case.
9. In my opinion in the present case
the judgement of the High Court in the
case of Ram Kumar (supra) squarely
applies. The respondents while passing
the
impugned
order
cancelling
the
candidature of the petitioner have not
taken into consideration the question of
eligibility of the petitioner or the fact that
he had himself at the time of being sent
for training filed an affidavit disclosing
the fact that he had been involved in a
criminal case and discharged as far back
as in 2001.
10. In this view of the matter, the
impugned order 19.2.2015 cannot survive
and is quashed. The writ petition is
allowed and the matter is remitted to the
respondent
no.
3-Senior
Divisional
Security Commissioner, R.P.F. Ambala
Division, Incharge of PRTC/Jehankhelan
Hoshiarpur to reconsider the matter in the
light of the observations made above as
well as having regard to the judgement of
the Supreme Court in the case of Ram
Kumar (supra) within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of the
certified copy of this order.
-------
.APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.02.2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.K. SHUKLA, J.
THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
Special Appeal No. 1829 of 2010
Shreyas Gramin Bank & Anr. ..Appellants
Versus
Smt. Kasturi Devi
...Respondent
Counsel for the Appellants:
Yashwant Varma
Counsel for the Respondent:
Bharat Pratap Singh, Amrish Sahai
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226compassionate
appointment
class
4th