Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2329 (ALL)

Lakshmi Singh Chauhan v. State of U. P.

2024-11-12

AJIT KUMAR

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Ajit Kumar, J.) Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents as well as Sri B.N. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the U.P. Public Service Commission. 2. Petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by the order dated 11th June, 2024, whereby petitioner's promotion on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police has been recalled by cancelling the recommendation made earlier by the Selection Committee on 27th March, 2024 and thus, even though petitioner has been discharging duties of Deputy Superintendent of Police, she came to be reverted back to the position of Inspector in the civil police. 3. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned Senior Advocate on the point that petitioner came to be promoted under the relevant Government order for the delayed proceedings of a criminal case for which petitioner was not responsible in any manner as her claim for promotion was placed in a sealed cover in the year 2022 and consideration was accorded afresh to the claim of the petitioner pursuant to the Government order dated 28th May, 1997 under the order of this Court and so respondents were not justified and the respondents were directed to obtain instructions in the matter. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has placed instructions before the Court. As per the instructions only reasons assigned for cancelling the selection of petitioner on promotional post is her wrong statement as to status of pending criminal case made in the affidavit furnished by her on 12th June, 2023. It is alleged that petitioner was to disclose the correct status of the pending criminal cases but she wrongly stated to have been discharged in a criminal case in connection with Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 whereas in respect of Sections 409 and 411 of I.P.C, she referred to some interim order passed by the High Court. According to learned Standing Counsel, against the order of discharge in connection with Section 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the State had filed revision petition before this Court in which the order of discharge has been stayed and so criminal case under all Sections were going on. 5. According to learned Standing Counsel, against the order of discharge in connection with Section 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the State had filed revision petition before this Court in which the order of discharge has been stayed and so criminal case under all Sections were going on. 5. It is upon this above wrongful statement of facts that action was taken to cancel the promotion of the petitioner and the recommendation was sought from U.P. Public Service Commission accordingly. 6. Sri B.N. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the U.P. Public Service Commission has also placed instruction, which is taken on record. 7. Sri B.N. Mishra submits that in view of the stand taken by the State Government that Selection Committee of the U.P. Public Service Commission in its meeting held on 27th March, 2024 decided to reserve the vacancy in question as per the sealed cover procedure. Thus, Mr. Mishra could not dispute that vacancy was there and, therefore, petitioner would have opportunity to be promoted as and when criminal case is over. 8. Meeting the objections raised in the instructions and arguments advanced by learned Standing Counsel, Mr. Vijay Gautam, learned Senior Advocate has argued that there was in fact no concealment of fact. He submitted that there is only one charge-sheet submitted by the police taking Section 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 409 and 411 of I.P.C. The charges were to be framed in respect of the Sections in which charge-sheet was filed and petitioner had been discharged admittedly by the Court under Section 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He submits that it is against this order of discharge a revision has been filed by the State in which there is an interim order of stay operating against the order of discharge. He submits that while the statements seem to have not been happily worded in the affidavit but the fact remains that there is an interim order passed by this Court and that too is only in respect of order of discharge. He submits that while the statements seem to have not been happily worded in the affidavit but the fact remains that there is an interim order passed by this Court and that too is only in respect of order of discharge. He further submits that the authorities should not have got misguided, more especially in the facts and circumstances when they were to comply with the directions issued by this Court dated 25th August, 2023 in Writ - A No. 13459 of 2023 in which vide paragraph 2 the Court had recorded the statement made by the counsel on behalf of the petitioner. 9. It is argued that the statement very much was made that there was a stay order in favour of the State against the order of discharge. He submits that this technical plea of alleged wrong statement on affidavit has been taken to cancel the selection of the petitioner only to somehow withhold promotion during the pendency of criminal case. 10. Sri Vijay Gautaum, learned Senior Advocate would however, concedes that it is a case where petitioner should have been promoted only on ad hoc basis as per the rules but the mistake was by the respondents that they convened a full-fledged selection board afresh to offer a clear promotion to the petitioner. He submits that he would have no objection in case petitioner is treated on ad hoc promotion during the pendency of criminal case. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find here it to be relevant to reproduce the part of the instructions that refers to the notarized affidavit made by the petitioner. The same is reproduced hereunder: 12. Now I find also relevant here to reproduce paragraph 3 of the order of this Court dated 25th August, 2023 in which the Court has recorded the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner. The same follows as under: ''Learned counsel for the petitioner states that sealed cover procedure was adopted in the month of April, 2022 and more than one year has been passed in the criminal case in which discharge application was allowed but the State has preferred a revision petition before this Court and the order discharging petitioner from criminal case has been stayed. He submits that it is now for the State to argue revision petition pending before this Court and get it disposed of. Thus he pleads that petitioner cannot be held liable for delayed disposal of criminal trial.'' 13. From reading of two paragraphs, one of the affidavit and the other one is of this Court, it is clear that petitioner never intended to mislead the authorities, more especially in the circumstances when the authorities were in possession of the original documents from which they could have verified the facts. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that fraud and forgery are not a matter of presumption but are question of fact required to be proved by leading evidence. 14. I am here reminded of a judgment of Supreme Court in case of Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, AIR 1976 SC 376 , in which the Supreme Court has held that when the authorities are seized with the original documents from where they can verify the facts then a mere representation by a student regarding his status as to attendance for appearance in the examination could not be taken to be an act of fraud or forgery. Although the judgment of the Supreme Court has been on a different setting of facts but applying the principle of fraud and forgery which may tantamount to an act of misconduct, would relate to a circumstance where authorities have no other option but to rely upon the representative of a person. I find that this is a fit case where the authorities should have taken pragmatic view. It is a case where authorities not only had the knowledge that criminal case was going on but even Court had directed for consideration of opening the sealed envelop of the petitioner to consider promotion if recommended. If authorities have proceeded to convene a selection board to hold full-fledged selection and offer appointment to the petitioner on promotional post, it was a fault on the part of the authorities only for which the petitioner could not have been saddled with the liability of any misrepresentation. If for holding a fresh selection they needed an affidavit petitioner submitted an affidavit, which ought to have been cross checked. If for holding a fresh selection they needed an affidavit petitioner submitted an affidavit, which ought to have been cross checked. In any case petitioner admitted criminal case to be pending against her and so her ad hoc promotion was to be considered in the light of the Government order and then Court's corder. Hence I find force in the submission of Mr. Gautam, learned Senior Advocate advanced in support of the pleadings raised in the petition and grounds for which the impugned order has been assailed but I may not remain oblivious of a fact that petitioner was promoted during the pendency of the criminal case and, therefore, it was necessary to ensure that the rules framed for the said purpose were fully honoured. Therefore, I consider it appropriate that while granting relief in the nature that petitioner's promotion should be restored, the same should be restored with an ad hoc status only so long as the criminal case goes on against the petitioner and such ad hoc promotion would have to definitely abide by the result of the criminal case. 15. In view of the above, the order dated 11th June, 2024 is hereby quashed. the recommendations of the The Public Service Commission in favour of the State to cancel the promotion of the petitioner is also hereby quashed. 16. The authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner as Deputy Superintendent of Police at the instance of promotion order which was passed in her favour but with this modification that she will remain there promoted only on ad hoc basis and her future as promoted Deputy Superintendent of Police shall abide by the result of the criminal proceedings which are going on against her. 17. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate consequential order in the matter within a period of 15 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.