Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1089 (ALL)

Satyapal v. State Of U. P.

2023-04-20

RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, SUNEET KUMAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : Suneet Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and Sri Arimardan Singh Rajpoot, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The present intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 18 February, 2021, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the petition filed by the appellant seeking direction to the respondents to sent him for training and, thereafter, appoint him on the post of Sub-Inspector, pursuant to joint examination 2011, came to be dismissed on merit, as well as, on the ground of delay. 3. The second respondent Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, Lucknow (For short 'Board'), issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Sub-Inspector in 2011. The appellant/petitioner came to be selected for the post of Sub-Inspector Platoon Commander, pursuant to the select list dated 20 September, 2019, notified by the second respondent. Thereafter, appellant/petitioner appeared for medical examination on 11 November, 2018 and was declared successful. For document verification, petitioner filed a notary affidavit in November, 2018, before the competent authority, wherein, petitioner did not disclose the criminal case that was lodged against the petitioner and that petitioner faced trial in a criminal case. 4. It appears that respondents non-suited the petitioner for having suppressed material information with regard to the criminal cases, that came to be lodged against the petitioner in 2011, though in 2012, petitioner came to be acquitted. The District Magistrate, accordingly, did not verify the character certificate of the petitioner. Petitioner came to be tried in N.C.R. Case No. 3 of 2006, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The case came to be compromised under Section 320 I.P.C. by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 22, Gorakhpur, vide order dated 25.05.2012. In Case Crime No. 1056 of 2010, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C., petitioner came to be acquitted vide order dated 03.09.2011, by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 22, Gorakhpur. 5. Learned Standing Counsel, on the direction of the coordinate Bench of this court has produced the record of the petitioner and submitted that in the affidavit dated 08 November 2019, petitioner did not disclose about the criminal cases which was earlier lodged against him, though, specifically asked for.. 6. 5. Learned Standing Counsel, on the direction of the coordinate Bench of this court has produced the record of the petitioner and submitted that in the affidavit dated 08 November 2019, petitioner did not disclose about the criminal cases which was earlier lodged against him, though, specifically asked for.. 6. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avatar Singh vs. Union of India and others, 2016 (8) SCC 471 . Paragraph no. 38.4.1 and 38.4.2 reads thus :- "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." 7. It is submitted that since the nature of the offence was trivial and petitioner was acquitted, therefore, the cases were not disclosed on the, bona fide, belief that no such case on the date of affidavit was pending against the petitioner. 8. Attention of the Court has been drawn by learned Standing Counsel to paragraph 38.10 of Avatar Singh (supra), wherein, it is mandated that all the information, which was required is to be specifically, mentioned/disclosed in the attestation/verification form. In such cases, action can be taken on the basis of suppression of submitting false information, as to a fact. Paragraph No. 38.10 is extracted :- 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.” 9. Suitability of a candidate for the post of Sub-Inspector is to be considered by the employer. 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.” 9. Suitability of a candidate for the post of Sub-Inspector is to be considered by the employer. In the opinion of an employer, suppression of criminal cases and filing of false affidavit, may be taken adverse to the candidature of the petitioner. 10. Suppression of material information and making of false statement in the verification form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee and his services can be terminated. Even where, employee makes a declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded trial court, employer still has the right to consider his antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. 11. Acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle the incumbent to appointment and it would be open to the employer to examine the suitability and fitness for appointment, each case should be thoroughly scrutinized by the employer/authority. More so, in case of recruitment for police Force, since their ability to inspire public confidence is essential for the service and scrutiny of the society . 12. The Supreme Court in Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India and Ors., J.T. 2022 (9) SC 513, considered the position of law post Avatar Singh (supra). The Court noted that the decision of the employer would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the nature of appointment sought by the candidate. In Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India, J.T. 2022 (5) SC 109, the appellant therein, had not disclosed the prosecution in their attestation form filled by the petitioner. The appellant was honorably acquitted. The Supreme Court held as follows :- "13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. The Supreme Court held as follows :- "13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service." 13. Similarly, in Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and another vs. Anil Kanwariya, J.T. 2021 (9) SC 349, the appellant therein came to be convicted in the criminal case under Section 143, 341 and 323 I.P.C., yet the trial court, thought fit to release him on probation. The court in paragraph 14 observe as follows :- "14. 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. 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." 14. In view of the judicial authorities noted herein above post Avatar Singh (supra). 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." 14. In view of the judicial authorities noted herein above post Avatar Singh (supra). The credibility, and/or, trustworthiness of such an employee who at the initial stage of the employment, i.e., while submitting the declaration/verification for a post made false declaration of having not being involved in a criminal case. The employer would be justified in not appointing such candidate, further, the employer cannot be compelled to continue/appoint, such an employee on the post. The candidate/employee cannot claim appointment, and/or, continue on the post as a matter of right. 15. This Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not sit in appeal on the discretion exercised by the employer in not offering appointment to the petitioner for suppression of material fact reflecting upon his character and credibility to the post of Sub-Inspector. 16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to take an opinion different from that of learned Single Judge. 17. The appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly, dismissed.