# Yogesh Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 2 ILRA 618
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-07-01
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.7568 of 2000
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/yogesh-kumar-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41043
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India-Art.226-Service
Law-termination on ground of false
declaration
in
application
formchallenged on the ground of subsequent
acquittal held-subsequent absolvement
of criminal proceeding will not condone
the misconduct of misrepresentationcourt declined to interfere.

Held: Para 2

In my opinion, the said judgment cannot
be relied upon by the petitioner in view
of the successive pronouncements given
by
the
Supreme
Court
in
various
decisions.
Further,
the
decision
in
Qamrul Hoda's case is no longer a good
law as held in Ravindera Singh vs. State
of U.P. decided on 16.5.2005 in writ
petition No.39418 of 2005.
Case law discussed:
1997 (2) UPLBEC 1201, 1996 (11) SCC 605,
2003 (3) SCC 306, 2005 (2) SCC 746, 2003 (1)
AWC 294

## Text

618 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED ALLAHABAD: 01.07.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.7568 of 2000

Yogesh Kumar Pandey
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.K. Ojha
Sri O.P. Singh
Sri B.D. Mishra
Sri M.S. Rathore
Sri R.K. Singh
Sri I.N. Singh
Sri D.N. Dubey
Sri V.R. Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India-Art.226-Service
Law-termination on ground of false
declaration
in
application
formchallenged on the ground of subsequent
acquittal held-subsequent absolvement
of criminal proceeding will not condone
the misconduct of misrepresentationcourt declined to interfere.

Held: Para 2

In my opinion, the said judgment cannot
be relied upon by the petitioner in view
of the successive pronouncements given
by
the
Supreme
Court
in
various
decisions.
Further,
the
decision
in
Qamrul Hoda's case is no longer a good
law as held in Ravindera Singh vs. State
of U.P. decided on 16.5.2005 in writ
petition No.39418 of 2005.
Case law discussed:
1997 (2) UPLBEC 1201, 1996 (11) SCC 605,
2003 (3) SCC 306, 2005 (2) SCC 746, 2003 (1)
AWC 294
(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. The petitioner was selected as a
constable and was sent for training. At the
time of filling his form, a declaration was
required to be given by the petitioner,
which he did, stating therein that he was
not involved in any criminal proceedings.
The respondents made an enquiry and
found that the petitioner was involved in a
criminal proceeding under Section 307
IPC in case crime No. 27 of 1997.
Consequently, the respondents issued an
order dated 4.11.99 terminating the
services of the petitioner. The petitioner,
being aggrieved, has filed the present writ
petition contending that the punishment of
dismissal
was
harsh
and
did
not
commensurate
with
the
misconduct.
Further, the petitioner was absolved in
that
criminal
proceedings
and
was
acquitted by the Court. In support of his
submission, the petitioner has relied upon
a decision in Qamrul Hoda vs. Chief
Security Commissioner, N.E. Railway,
Gorakhpur, 1997 (2) UPLBEC 1201.

2. In my opinion, the said judgment
cannot be relied upon by the petitioner in
view of the successive pronouncements
given by the Supreme Court in various
decisions. Further, the decision in Qamrul
Hoda's case is no longer a good law as
held in Ravindera Singh vs. State of U.P.
decided on 16.5.2005 in writ petition
No.39418 of 2005.

3.

In
Delhi
Administration
through its Chief Secretary and others
vs. Sushil Kumar, 1996 (11) SCC 605,
the
Supreme
Court
held
that
the
concealment of involvement in the
criminal proceeding in the declaration
form and subsequent absolvement in the
criminal proceedings will not condone the
2 All] Yogesh Kumar Pandey V. State of U.P. and others
619
act of misrepresentation. The Court held
that the conduct or character of the
candidate to be appointed in service is
relevant and not the result of the criminal
proceedings. The Supreme Court held-

"It is seen 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 he 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 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."

4.

In
Kendriya
Vidyalaya
Sangathan and others Vs. Ram Ratan
Yadav, 2003 (3) SCC 306, the Supreme
Court held-

"The object of requiring information
in columns 12 and 13 of the attestation
form and certification thereafter by the
candidate was to ascertain and verify that
character and antecedents to judge his
suitability to continue in service. A
candidate having suppressed material
information
and/or
giving
false
information cannot claim right to continue
in service. The employer having regard to
the nature of the employment and all
other aspects had the discretion to
terminate his services, which is made
expressly clear in para 9 of the offer of
appointment. The purpose of seeking
information as per columns 12 and 13 not
find out either the nature or 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 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."

5. Similar view was again expressed
by the Supreme Court in the case of
Secretary,
Department
of
Home
Secretary, A.P. and others vs. B.
Chinnam Naidu, 2005 (2) SCC 746.

6. Further, a division bench of this
court Rajesh Yadav vs. Union of India
and others, 2003 (1) AWC 294 has again
held the same view.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the
petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
---------
620 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.05.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN, J.

Crl. Misc. Application 9080 of 2008

M/s Rishabh Nath Developers & Builders
(Pvt.) Ltd. and others

...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri. D.C. Mathur

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-482quashing of criminal proceeding-offence
under Section 138/142 of Negotiable
Instrument
Act-challenge
made
on
ground
no
notice
received
by
the
applicants before lodging complaint-can
be probed suitably by the Trail Courtfollowing the guidelines of the Apex
Court
2001
Cri.L.J.
4250.-necessary
direction issued.

Held: Para 8

This relief is being granted up to the
stage of framing of charges provided the
applicants give an undertaking to the
satisfaction of the trial court that (a)
their counsel will remain present on their
behalf and represent them on each date,
(b) they will not raise any objection as to
their being the actual person who is
facing trail, (c) they do not object to the
evidence
being
recorded
in
their
absence, (d) they undertake to be
present
before the Court whenever
called upon to do so at any stage
Case law discussed:
(2005)4 SCC 417
AIR 1998 SC 3043
(1999) 4 SCC 567
2001 Cri.L.J. 4250

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amar Saran, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants
and
learned
Additional
Government Government.

2. In this case admittedly the
applicants have got themselves bailed out.

3. Now this application has been
filed for quashing the further proceedings
against the applicants in case no. 1639 of
2007,
under
sections
138/142
of
Negotiable Instrument Act, pending in the
court of Special Judicial Magistrate,
C.B.I., Ghaziabad.

4. Placing reliance on the
decisions of Supreme Court in the
case of Prem Chand Vijay Kumar Vs.
Yashpal Singh and another, (2005) 4
SCC 417, Sadanandan Bhadran Vs
Mahhavan Sunil Kumar, AIR 1998 SC
3043 and SIL Import, USA Vs Exim
Aides Silk Exporters, Banglore, (1999) 4
SCC 567, learned counsel for the
applicants submits that in this case two
notices were issued, first on 31.7.2997
and the second on 15.09.2007. However, I
find that in the complaint there is no
mention of the first notice. The argument
of the learned counsel for the applicants is
that the cause of action arises under
section 138 read with 142(b) within 15
days of the receipt of the first notice.

5. However, in the case cited by the
learned counsel for the applicants there
was an admitted position that two notices
were served, but this matter requires to be
probed before the trail court as the
complaint is silent about the first notice.

6. I think, it would be proper to
permit the applicants to raise their