Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 810 (ALL)

ABHILASH KUMAR v. STATE OF U. P.

2012-04-03

BHARATI SAPRU

body2012
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.: This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to join duties and complete his training. The case in the writ petition is that the petitioner appeared in examination and test for the recruitment of constables and cleared it in the year 1998 but after being selected, he was not sent for training on the ground that there was a criminal case pending against the petitioner being criminal case no.61 of 1997 under sections 325, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. It has been stated clearly in para 5 of the writ petition that no chargesheet has been submitted by the State against the petitioner and no conviction has been made. This court passed an interim order on 16.12.1998 allowing the petitioner to complete his training and join his duties. A counter affidavit was filed by the State in which revelations were made in the affidavit with regard to the case of the petitioner. It was brought to the notice of the court that the petitioner at the time of making an application for selection and in the verification affidavit, had stated that he was not involved in any case and had not been chargesheeted. The petitioner had in fact made false statement in the verificatioin affidavit and upon an examination of the verification, the matter came to light that he had been chargesheeted in criminal case no.61 of 1997 under sections 325, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. The contentions of para 4 of the counter affidavit have been replied in para 4 of the rejoinder affidavit and are not denied. The petitioner has simply stated that he had no knowledge of the said matter. In a latter affidavit, the petitioner has brought on record the fact that he was subsequently acquitted on 10.5.2002. The tenor of the petition is that the petitioner was falsely implicated in a case and because he was ultimately acquitted, he should have been allowed to join duties. On the other hand, counter affidavit reveals that the ground for not allowing the petitioner to join duties and to go for training was on account of fact that he had given false information in his verification. On the other hand, counter affidavit reveals that the ground for not allowing the petitioner to join duties and to go for training was on account of fact that he had given false information in his verification. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that because he was ultimately acquitted, he should have been allowed to join duties and has relied on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Police and others versus Sandeep Kumar, reported in 2011 AIR SCW 3601 in which the accused respondent was terminated from service for having given false statement in his verification. Hon'ble Apex Court has taken a lenient view of the matter and has stated that the courts must display wisdom in condoning the minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives. In the case Commissioner of Police and others versus Sandeep Kumar ( supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was referring to a case of Welsh students, who had participated in making demonstration before the Court, which was considered contemptuous. Learned standing counsel who has appeared for the respondents has on the contrary relied on two Division Bench decisions of this Court in the case of Aditya Kumar versus State of U.P. and others ( special appeal ( D) no.997 of 2009) decided on 13.10.2009 in which the Special Appeal Court, relying on the Hon'ble Apex Court has come the conclusion that where the petitioner made a declaration which on verification was found to be false and he did not contest the same but only submitted that he had been acquitted of the charges and therefore he should have been taken into consideration for appointment, would not be judicious. The Division Bench has also held that in the facts and circumstances of that case when the petitioner did not contest the effect of loding of the F.I.R. before the date of declaration, cancellation of the appointment could not be held to be bad on any count. The Division Bench has also held that in the facts and circumstances of that case when the petitioner did not contest the effect of loding of the F.I.R. before the date of declaration, cancellation of the appointment could not be held to be bad on any count. The second Division Bench decision in the case of Ram Kumar versus State of U.P. and others ( special appeal ( d) no.924 of 2009) decided on 31.8.2009 in which also this Court has taken a view that where a false declaration has been made and it is discovered from the examination of the verification, no relief should be given to such a petitioner. The Supreme Court decisions have been relied by the Division Bench are Delhi Administrative and others versus Sushil Kumar reported in 1997 ( 1)( ESC 179 ( SC) and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan versus Ram Ratan Yadav reported in ( 2003) 3 SCC 437and A.P. Public Service Commision versus Koneti Venkateswarulu reported in ( 2005)7 SCC 177. Having heard Sri Neeraj Singh for the petitioner and Sri A.C. Mishra learned standing counsel for the respondents State and having perused the consistent view of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above-noted case, I am of the opinion, the petitioner in the present case does not deserve any relief. The petitioner was seeking appointment as police constable. The personnel of the police force are sentinels of the nation. Their character and integrity at all times should be above board including at the threshold of their appointments. It would certainly not be wise to induct a person in a disciplined force who has at the threshold of his appointment sought induction on the basis of falsehood or misleading information. This would not be conducive for maintaining peace and order in the nation. On the other hand, it would be completely contradictory and opposed to it. Thus in my opinion, the petitioner deserves no relief. It may also be stated here that despite interim order given by this Court, the petitioner was never allowed to join and he did not file any contempt petition within a period of one year. The judgments relied on by the petitioner do not apply to the case in hand. Thus in my opinion, the petitioner deserves no relief. It may also be stated here that despite interim order given by this Court, the petitioner was never allowed to join and he did not file any contempt petition within a period of one year. The judgments relied on by the petitioner do not apply to the case in hand. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguisable on the point that this is not the case of termination but rather the petitioner was not allowed to join duty from very beginning. The enforcement of law and order in the nation cannot be left to the hands of the persons who have the propensity to perpetuate falsehood or are inclined to give misleading information for such propensity's would then no doubt also extend in the carriage of their duties. The writ petition is dismissed as above. No costs.