Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2170 (ALL)

Shivam Yadav v. State of U. P.

2024-10-01

J.J.MUNIR

body2024
JUDGMENT : J.J. Munir, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against an order of the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri dated July the 8th, 2024, cancelling the petitioner’s selection/ candidature as a Constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police on ground of his involvement in a criminal case. 2. The petitioner was selected as a Constable in the Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC, Direct Recruitment, October, 2018-II, held pursuant to an advertisement dated 16.11.2018 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Establishment/ Personnel, Office of the DGP, Police Headquarters, Lucknow. The petitioner says that pursuant to the advertisement last mentioned, he applied for the post of a Constable in the category of OBC Male. He says that he was eligible and fulfilled all the requisite qualifications and conditions mentioned in the advertisement dated 16. 11.2018. The application form was submitted online. A total number of 49568 posts of Constables Civil Police and PAC were advertised through the advertisement under reference. The petitioner says that 31360 posts advertised were earmarked for the Civil Police whereas 18208 for the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) Establishment. 3. Shorn of unnecessary detail, the process of selection under the Uttar Pradesh Police Constables & Head Constables Service Rules, 2015 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2015’) involves a process of selection where for the posts of Constables, there is provision for a written examination, followed by document verification, a physical standard test and a physical efficiency test. Those candidates, who come out successful through all these tiers of selection, find their name in the final select list. Those who figure in the final select list have then to undergo a medical examination, besides a character verification. After the written examination, the cut-off merit was published by a notification dated 20.11.2019 and those selected in the written examination were called to appear in the next stage of selection, to wit, document verification and the physical standard test. The petitioner qualified the written examination and secured marks higher than the cut-off. He was called for document verification and the physical standard test. The petitioner went through the document verification and physical standard test successfully as well as the physical efficiency test. The petitioner qualified the written examination and secured marks higher than the cut-off. He was called for document verification and the physical standard test. The petitioner went through the document verification and physical standard test successfully as well as the physical efficiency test. This was followed by declaration of final select list vide notification dated 02.03.2020, issued by the Chairman/ Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, Lucknow, where a total of 49568 candidates were declared selected for various posts pursuant to the Direct Recruitment of 2018-II. 4. A call letter was issued to the petitioner, asking him to appear in the medical examination, scheduled to be held at the Reserve Police Lines, Ghaziabad. The petitioner appeared in the medical examination at the appointed time and venue, where he was declared medically fit. He was then allotted District Mainpuri to join his training. The petitioner’s papers were sent to the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri for followup action, as the petitioner says, but at Mainpuri, he was not allowed to join training by the S.P. Going back a little in point of time, the petitioner says that at the time he went through his medical examination and document verification, the petitioner was required to furnish personal information in the form of a notarized affidavit and the petitioner submitted his notarized affidavit before the competent Authority on 10.09.2020, where the petitioner did not disclose that any criminal case was pending against him. It is pleaded by the petitioner that at the time he submitted the notarized affidavit before the competent Authority on 10.09.2020, there was no criminal case against the petitioner, and, therefore, he was not obliged to say that one was pending against him. The petitioner, however, was not permitted to join training by the S.P., Mainpuri on ground that a criminal case was registered against him. 5. The petitioner says that an FIR was lodged against the petitioner on 21.07.2019, giving rise to Crime No.0615 of 2019, under Sections 147, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad. The said FIR was lodged by one Brijesh Kumar against five accused men, to wit, Rinku (a nick name for the petitioner), Punit, Vinit, Pradeep and Ravinder. This FIR was registered, the petitioner says, behind his back with the petitioner not knowing anything about the occurrence, where he was not present. The said FIR was lodged by one Brijesh Kumar against five accused men, to wit, Rinku (a nick name for the petitioner), Punit, Vinit, Pradeep and Ravinder. This FIR was registered, the petitioner says, behind his back with the petitioner not knowing anything about the occurrence, where he was not present. At the time of the incident shown in the FIR, the petitioner was preparing to write his competitive examinations. He says that he was deliberately implicated to harm him in his career. The petitioner was never arrested in connection with the crime under reference nor was he ever called upon to furnish bail or secure an order of bail from the Court of competent jurisdiction. In fact, the petitioner was never summoned in connection with the case by the Court. It is true that the petitioner was named in the FIR, as it later transpired, but the Police, after collecting evidence, submitted a charge-sheet on 19.10.2019, under Sections 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act against four persons, to wit, Punit, Vinit, Pradeep and Ravinder, but not the petitioner. He was exculpated. The petitioner was also not summoned by the Court at any stage, whereas the charge-sheeted accused were tried and acquitted by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad vide judgment and order dated 11.03.2024. 6. A notice of motion was issued by a detailed order dated 23. 09.2024 passed by this Court, in response whereto a personal affidavit has been filed by the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri. It is taken on record and shall be read as a counter affidavit to this petition. The respondents do not seek opportunity to file any further affidavit and the learned Counsel for the petitioner waives his opportunity to file a rejoinder. 7. Admit. 8. Heard forthwith. 9. Heard Mr. Rishabh Kesarwani, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Monika Arya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 10. What this Court finds is that the impugned order, cancelling the petitioner’s candidature, has been passed rather mechanically for the mere registration of a case that the petitioner did not disclose in his affidavit. The non-disclosure has been blamed upon the petitioner as a relevant fact, disentitling him to be appointed. This is not a case where the registration of the FIR led to anything against the petitioner. The non-disclosure has been blamed upon the petitioner as a relevant fact, disentitling him to be appointed. This is not a case where the registration of the FIR led to anything against the petitioner. He was never arrested in the crime nor did he secure bail from any Court. He was never summoned in relation to the case at any stage. Therefore, when he filled up the form, the petitioner was not aware of the fact that a crime had been registered against him, which was pending investigation. Now, the Superintendent of Police says that he has left Clause 11, sub-Clauses 1, 2 and 3 blank in the application form or the affidavit, whatever the Superintendent of Police is referring to in paragraph No.8 of the affidavit, and further says that according to the report of the Circle Officer, Sadar, Ghaziabad, the crime was under investigation on 19.12.2020, when the Circle Officer made his report. There is no pleading to the effect that the petitioner had been summoned in connection with the crime by the Police or the Court or that he was aware of it by any such step as the seeking of bail or joining investigation. The contents of paragraph No.34 of the writ petition, where it is said that he never was arrested or secured bail or summoned, have not been denied or dispelled in the Superintendent of Police’s affidavit. It can well, therefore, be inferred that the petitioner never came to know about the registration of the crime, which ultimately led to a final report in his favour and a charge-sheet against the other accused. The petitioner says that he was studying for his competitive examinations and was not in the locale. It is quite plausible, as it happens, that the petitioner being selected in government service, his name was introduced in the FIR along with some others, who were somehow suspected of the crime. The petitioner was exculpated by the Police whereas the other co-accused were charge-sheeted, tried and acquitted. In these circumstances, if the petitioner did not mention registration of the crime in the application form or the affidavit furnished during the recruitment process, it cannot be regarded blameworthy conduct. The circumstances do show that the petitioner might be utterly unaware of the case registered with the Police, as he asserts. In these circumstances, if the petitioner did not mention registration of the crime in the application form or the affidavit furnished during the recruitment process, it cannot be regarded blameworthy conduct. The circumstances do show that the petitioner might be utterly unaware of the case registered with the Police, as he asserts. In the affidavit, the stand taken by the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri is that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad by his letter dated 15.03.2024 forwarded the petitioner’s recruitment documents to the District Magistrate, recommending a thorough evaluation of his suitability for recruitment as a Constable in accordance with the guidelines carried in the Government Order dated 28.04.1958. The District Magistrate vide letter dated 08.04.2024 sent the original documents relating to the petitioner’s recruitment to the Additional Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, indicating the following opinion- “In mine opinion, the provisions concerning character verification under the paragraph no. 8 of the government order dated 26.04.1958 and in para 38(7) of the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Avatar Singh vs. Union of India stipulate that deliberate suppression of facts, with respect to multiple pending case such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating service as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper”. 11. To say the least, the District Magistrate’s opinion or that of the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri in writing the impugned order, betrays utter lack of application of mind, both as to the terms of the Government Order dated 28.04.1958 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 . It is not the purpose of the Government Order or the law that the Courts have laid down that capable persons of good character should be deprived of public employment, because they have had the accident of a case being registered against them, where nothing of complicity was ever found. The purpose of all laws that disentitle from recruitment to government service persons, against whom criminal cases are registered, is to eliminate from public employment men of criminal and shady antecedents. The purpose of all laws that disentitle from recruitment to government service persons, against whom criminal cases are registered, is to eliminate from public employment men of criminal and shady antecedents. It is the object, purpose and spirit of the principle that has to be understood and not a mathematical formula applied mechanically to every case where the Government find that a case was registered against a candidate for public service, irrespective of its nature, result or the aspirant’s involvement therein. 12. So far as the issue of suppression is concerned, it must be remembered that suppression is blameworthy conduct if the concerned candidate is aware about the registration of a case. Suppression in itself postulates awareness about a fact. A person, who does not know a fact or is unaware of it, cannot be blamed with suppression thereof merely because he has not stated it. To infer from a blank column, the petitioner’s awareness of the case registered against him is too far fetched a conclusion to draw, or at least, not a reasonable one. There could be many inexplicable reasons for a candidate to miss out on filling up a column and not every column left unfilled, tells the story of hidden truths. Sometimes omissions are accidental and sometimes the outcome of oppressively perplexing detail, which may lead to such omissions. Sometimes it is pure doubt and the fear or hesitation of committing a mistake and suffering a technical rejection by the less human eye of a computer device. 13. The petitioner has given a very logical explanation about the fact of not mentioning the registration of a case against him in paragraph No.34 of the writ petition and we need not repeat it. The substance of it is that there was just the registration of a crime against the petitioner in a virtually a petty offence, where he was exculpated by the Police and never charge-sheeted. Those, who were, came to be acquitted. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the relevant part of the Government Order dated 28.04.1958, on which much reliance has been placed by the respondents. It reads : “3. Those, who were, came to be acquitted. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the relevant part of the Government Order dated 28.04.1958, on which much reliance has been placed by the respondents. It reads : “3. (a) Every direct recruit to any service under the Uttar Pradesh Government will be required to produce: (i) A certificate of conduct and character from the head of the educational institution where he last studied (if he went to such an institution). (ii) Certificates of character from two persons. The appointing authority will lay down requirements as to kind of persons from whom it desires these certificates. (b) In cases of doubt, the appointing authority may either ask for further references, or may refer the case to the District Magistrate concerned. The District Magistrate may then make further enquiries as he considers necessary. Note(a) A conviction need not of itself involve the refusal of a certificate of good character. The circumstances of the conviction should be taken into account and if they involve on moral turpitude or association with crimes of violence or with a movement which has its object to overthrow by violent means of Government as by law now established in free India the mere conviction need not be regarded as disqualification. (Conviction of a person during his childhood should not necessarily operate as a bar to his entering Government service. The entire circumstances in which his conviction was recorded as well as the circumstances in which he is now placed should be taken into consideration. If he has completely reformed himself on attaining the age of understanding and discretion, mere conviction in childhood should not operate as a bar to his entering Government service). (b) While no person should be considered unfit for appointment solely because of his political opinions, care should be taken not to employ persons who are likely to be disloyal and to abuse the confidence placed in them by virtue of their appointment. Ordinarily, persons who are actively engaged in subversive activities including members of any organization the avowed object of which is to change the existing order of society by violent means should be considered unfit for appointment under Government. Ordinarily, persons who are actively engaged in subversive activities including members of any organization the avowed object of which is to change the existing order of society by violent means should be considered unfit for appointment under Government. Participation in such activities at any time after attaining the age of 21 years and within three years of the date of enquiry should be considered as evidence that the person is still actively engaged in such activities unless in the interval there is positive evidence of change of attitude. (c) Persons dismissed by the Central Government or by a State Government will also be deemed to be unfit for appointment to any service under this Government. 2(d) In the case of direct recruits to the State Services under the Uttar Pradesh Government includes requiring the candidates to submit the certificates mentioned in paragraph 3 (a) above. The appointing authority shall refer all cases simultaneously to Deputy Inspector General of Police, intelligence and the District Magistrate (of the home district and of the district(s) where the candidate has resided for more than a year within five years of the date of the inquiry) giving full particulars about the candidate. The District Magistrate shall get the reports in respect of the candidates from the Superintendent of Police who will consult District Police Records and records of the Local Intelligence Unit. The District Police or the District Intelligence Unit shall not make any enquiries on the spot, but shall report from their records whether there is anything against the candidate, but if in any specific case the District Magistrate at the instance of the appointing authority ask for an enquiry on the spot the Local Police or the Local Intelligence Units will do so and report the result to him. The District Magistrate shall then reports his own views to the appointing authority. Where the District Police or the Local Intelligence Units report adversely about a candidate the District Magistrate may give the candidate a hearing before sending his report. (e) In the case of direct recruits (who are lower in rank than that of a State Service Officer) of: (i) the police (including ministerial staff of Police Officers). (ii) the Secretariat. (iii) the staff employed in the government factories, (iv) power houses and dams. (e) In the case of direct recruits (who are lower in rank than that of a State Service Officer) of: (i) the police (including ministerial staff of Police Officers). (ii) the Secretariat. (iii) the staff employed in the government factories, (iv) power houses and dams. besides requiring the candidates to submit the certificates mentioned in paragraph 3 (a) above, the appointing authorities shall refer all cases simultaneously to the Deputy Inspector General, C.I.D. and the District Superintendent of Police (of the home district and of the district(s) where the candidate has resided for more than a year within five year of the date of the inquiry) giving full particulars about the candidate. The Superintendents of Police will send his report direct to the appointing authority if there is nothing adverse against the candidate. In cases where the report is unfavourable the Superintendent of Police will forward it to the District Magistrate who will send for the candidate concerned, give him a hearing and then, form his own opinion. All the necessary papers (the Superintendent of Police's report the candidate's statement and the District Magistrate's finding) will there after be sent to the appointing authority. 4. It will be seen that in cases of direct recruit to services other than those mentioned in paragraphs 3 (c) and 3 (d) above, verification shall not be necessary as a matter of routine except in cases of doubt when the procedure mentioned in paragraph 3 (b) shall be followed. 5. In the case of a candidate for services mentioned in paragraphs 3 (c) and 3 (d) above- (i) if at the time of enquiry the candidate is residing in a locality situated outside Uttar Pradesh or if he has resided in such a locality at any time within five years of the date of enquiry for a period of one year or more it shall be the duty of the deputy Inspector General, C. I. D. to consult also the C. I. D. D. of the State concerned in which the locality is situated before making his verification report. (ii) if the candidate was residing before partition in area now comprising Pakistan the Deputy Inspector General, C. I. D. shall also make a reference to the Director of Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, in addition to the usual enquires as indicated above. 6. (ii) if the candidate was residing before partition in area now comprising Pakistan the Deputy Inspector General, C. I. D. shall also make a reference to the Director of Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, in addition to the usual enquires as indicated above. 6. It has also been observed that where the District Magistrates are required to send the attestation forms they sometimes do not sign the forms themselves, Government consider it very desirable that the attestation forms should invariably be signed by the District Magistrates them selves in all such cases.” 14. A perusal of the Government Order dated 28.04.1958 would show that the District Magistrate was entrusted with the process of character verification in order to secure a balanced opinion about the suitability of a candidate for government service based on all relevant facts. It was never the employment policy of the State to exclude from consideration for public employment every person against whom a crime had been registered. Of course, a heinous and serious crime involving moral turpitude and some proceeding showing involvement would always be a criterion to exclude a candidate unless subsequent proceedings demonstrate him/her to be utterly innocent and not involved at all. But a host of other offences, trivial or not so trivial, or cases of utter false accusation, where nothing turned out against a person, would have to be gauged by the District Magistrate for the purpose of verifying a candidate’s character and suitability for employment under the State. If this were not the policy of the State, there was no need for an elaborate provision where the Collector, the Superintendent of Police and in certain cases, the CID, have to be involved before a conclusion was reached, if a candidate is suitable for public employment, registration of a crime notwithstanding. 15. This matter came up before the Supreme Court much earlier in the day than Avtar Singh (supra) in Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644 . The facts in Sandeep Kumar (supra) are described thus in report : “2. The respondent herein, Sandeep Kumar applied for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in 1999. 15. This matter came up before the Supreme Court much earlier in the day than Avtar Singh (supra) in Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644 . The facts in Sandeep Kumar (supra) are described thus in report : “2. The respondent herein, Sandeep Kumar applied for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in 1999. In the application form it was printed: “12(a) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a court of law for any offence, debarred/disqualified by any Public Service Commission from appearing at its examination/selection or debarred from any examination, rusticated by any university or any other education authority/institution.” Against that column the respondent wrote: “No”. 3. It is alleged that this is a false statement made by the respondent because he and some of his family members were involved in a criminal case being FIR No. 362 under Sections 325/34 IPC. This case was admittedly compromised on 18-1-1998 and the respondent and his family members were acquitted on 18-1-1998. 4. In response to the advertisement issued in January 1999 for filling up of certain posts of Head Constables (Ministerial), the respondent applied on 24-2-1999 but did not mention in his application form that he was involved in the aforesaid criminal case. The respondent qualified in all the tests for selection to the post of temporary Head Constable (Ministerial). On 3-4-2001 he filled the attestation form wherein for the first time he disclosed that he had been involved in a criminal case with his tenant which, later on, had been compromised in 1998 and he had been acquitted. 5. On 2-8-2001 a show-cause notice was issued to him asking the respondent to show cause why his candidature for the post should not be cancelled because he had concealed the fact of his involvement in the aforesaid criminal case and had made a wrong statement in his application form. The respondent submitted his reply on 17-8-2001 and an additional reply but the authorities were not satisfied with the same and on 29-5-2003 cancelled his candidature.” 16. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court on the above mentioned facts held: “8. We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court on the above mentioned facts held: “8. We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives. 11. As already observed above, youth often commits indiscretions, which are often condoned. 12. It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Sections 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter.” 17. Also relevant to the issue under consideration in the present case is the guidance of the Supreme Court in Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, (2011) 14 SCC 709 . The facts in Ram Kumar (supra), as these appear in the report of their Lordships’ judgment read : “2. The facts very briefly are that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the State Government of U.P. on 19-11-2006, the appellant applied for the post of Constable and he submitted an affidavit dated 12-6-2006 to the recruiting authority in the pro forma of verification roll. In the affidavit dated 12-6-2006, he made various statements required for the purpose of recruitment and in Para 4 of the affidavit he stated that no criminal case was registered against him. He was selected and appointed as a male constable and deputed for training. 3. Thereafter, Jaswant Nagar Police Station, District Etawah, submitted a report dated 15-1-2007 stating that Criminal Case No. 275 of 2001 under Sections 324/323/504 IPC was registered against the appellant and thereafter the criminal case was disposed of by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah on 18-7-2002 and the appellant was acquitted by the court. 3. Thereafter, Jaswant Nagar Police Station, District Etawah, submitted a report dated 15-1-2007 stating that Criminal Case No. 275 of 2001 under Sections 324/323/504 IPC was registered against the appellant and thereafter the criminal case was disposed of by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah on 18-7-2002 and the appellant was acquitted by the court. Along with this report, a copy of the order dated 18-7-2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was also enclosed. 4. The report dated 15-1-2007 of Jaswant Nagar Police Station, District Etawah, was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. By order dated 8-8-2007, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, cancelled the order of selection of the appellant on the ground that he had submitted an affidavit stating wrong facts and concealing correct facts and his selection was irregular and illegal. 5. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 40674 of 2007 under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Allahabad High Court but the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by his order dated 30-8-2007 [ WP (C) No. 40674 of 2007, order dated 30-8-2007 (All)]. The learned Single Judge held that since the appellant had furnished false information in his affidavit in the pro forma verification roll, his case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav [ (2003) 3 SCC 437 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 306] and that he was rightly terminated from service without any inquiry. The appellant challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in Special Appeal No. 924 of 2009 but the Division Bench of the High Court did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the same by the impugned order dated 31-8-2009 [ Special Appeal (Defective) No. 924 of 2009, order dated 31-8-2009 (All)].” 18. In Ram Kumar, it was held by the Supreme Court : “9. In Ram Kumar, it was held by the Supreme Court : “9. We have carefully read the Government Order dated 28-4-1958 on the subject “ Verification of the character and antecedents of government servants before their first appointment” and it is stated in the government order that the Governor has been pleased to lay down the following instructions in supersession of all the previous orders: “The rule regarding character of candidate for appointment under the State Government shall continue to be as follows: The character of a candidate for direct appointment must be such as to render him suitable in all respects for employment in the service or post to which he is to be appointed. It would be the duty of the appointing authority to satisfy itself on this point.” 10. It will be clear from the aforesaid instructions issued by the Governor that the object of the verification of the character and antecedents of government servants before their first appointment is to ensure that the character of a government servant for a direct recruitment is such as to render him suitable in all respects for employment in the service or post to which he is to be appointed and it would be a duty of the appointing authority to satisfy itself on this point. 11. In the facts of the present case, we find that though Criminal Case No. 275 of 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 18-7-2002 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah. 12. On a reading of the order dated 18-7-2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate it would show that the sole witness examined before the court, PW 1, Mr Akhilesh Kumar, had deposed before the court that on 2-12-2000 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. 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. 13. The order dated 18-7-2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had been sent along with the report dated 15-1-2007 of Jaswant Nagar Police Station to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, but it appears from the order dated 8-8-2007 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 pro forma of verification roll that a criminal case has been registered against him. 14. As has been stated in the instructions in the Government Order dated 28-4-1958, 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.” 19. Of course, now the most comprehensive treatment of the law on the issue is to be found in Avtar Singh, which by all means is the locus classicus. In Avtar Singh, the following principles have been summarized by the Supreme Court : 38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise 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. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise 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. 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 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 suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.” 20. For all that we have said about the impugned order and the stand taken in the affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, we find this case to be one of utter lack of application of mind, apart from other reasons, because the Superintendent of Police has relied upon paragraph No.38.7 of the principles in Avtar Singh to hold the petitioner disentitled to appointment. As a reading of paragraph No.38.7 would show the said paragraph or the principle carried therein, so to speak is applicable to a case of deliberate suppression with regard to multiple pending cases, which a candidate does not disclose. This, by no means, is a case where multiple cases were pending against the petitioner. As a reading of paragraph No.38.7 would show the said paragraph or the principle carried therein, so to speak is applicable to a case of deliberate suppression with regard to multiple pending cases, which a candidate does not disclose. This, by no means, is a case where multiple cases were pending against the petitioner. It is a case where a solitary crime was registered by the Police and did not go an inch beyond the registration, so far as the petitioner is concerned. Now to invoke the principle in paragraph No.38.7 and act on its basis to cancel the petitioner’s candidature or selection, is a glaring case of non-application. Of course, paragraph No.38.8 of the principles in Avtar Singh may have some relevance because the principle there postulates that even if a criminal case pending against a candidate was not known to him at the time he filled up his application form, it may still have adverse impact and the Appointing Authority would take a decision after considering the seriousness of the crime. 21. In the present case, while technically the principle in paragraph No.38.8 might have relevance as remarked, this Court is of clear opinion that on facts, it would not apply. The reason is that there was absolutely not a shred of evidence ever forthcoming against the petitioner in the crime at any stage of the matter. If there were some material against the petitioner, with credibility attached to it, the petitioner would have been charge-sheeted like the other four accused nominated alongside him. The fact that the charge-sheeted accused were acquitted by the Court shows that the prosecution was not able to establish its case at all against men, who were accused alongside the petitioner in the crime. But, the fact that the Police could not lay its hands on any evidence relating to the petitioner’s complicity in the crime, even as much as to warrant his joining investigation or seeking bail, as a person wanted in the crime, inevitably shows that the petitioner’s nomination was nothing more than a false script on a piece of paper. Merely, because someone has chosen to falsely nominate a person in a crime, about which the Police too on investigation do not find any evidence, cannot lead to the conclusion that non-disclosure of the offence must invite cancellation of candidature. Merely, because someone has chosen to falsely nominate a person in a crime, about which the Police too on investigation do not find any evidence, cannot lead to the conclusion that non-disclosure of the offence must invite cancellation of candidature. Indeed, a conclusion of this kind, given the nature of the offence, the proceedings during investigation, the non-complicity for the petitioner found by the Police and the acquittal of the co-accused, all read together, would be a disproportionate measure to take on the respondents’ part. In fact, on this state of things for the S.P. to think that this is a case where the petitioner’s candidature ought be cancelled, in our considered opinion, is a perverse conclusion. 22. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.07.2024 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri is hereby quashed. A mandamus is issued to the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri, ordering him to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment as a Constable, without reference to the case once registered against him and pass necessary orders, granting him notional seniority with his batch, within a period of six weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 23. Costs shall be easy.