JUDGMENT : Prakash Padia, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter alia with the prayer to set aside the order dated 17.1.2019 passed by respondent No. 4-Superintendent of Police, Basti, District Basti. 2. The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition is that petitioner applied under OBC (Male) category for the selection of Male Constable in the Police Constable and Constable PAC (Male) Direct Recruitment, 2015 in pursuance of the advertisement dated 29.12.2015 issued by the respondent No. 2-Chairman/Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board through its Controller of Examination and he was finally selected but at the time of joining of the service petitioner was not allowed to join and he was orally informed by the official concerned that on account of pendency of criminal case against the petitioner he was not allowed to submit his joining. Pursuant to the same now a decision has been taken by the respondent No. 4 dated 17.1.2019, which is under challenge. It is further argued that in the order impugned only ground taken that since a criminal case was pending against the petitioner in which a charge-sheet has been submitted on 6.1.2018 and the matter is pending consideration before competent Court and since aforesaid fact was concealed by the petitioner, he is not entitled for appointment. 3. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that immediately after filing of the application in which by way of mistake a wrong information was given by him a fresh affidavit has been submitted by him on 19.7.2018 before the District Magistrate and the copy also sent before the S.P., Ghazipur in which petitioner has disclosed regarding pendency of a criminal case against him, copy of the aforesaid affidavit is appended as annexure 8 to the writ petition. 4. The facts regarding filing of the fresh affidavit is mentioned in paragraph 43 of the present petition, which read as follows: “43. That, it is respectfully stated that thereafter immediately the another affidavit has been submitted by the petitioner on 19/07/2018, before the District Magistrate and the copy of the said affidavit has also been sent before the S.P. Ghazipur, in which the petitioner was disclosed the criminal case. True copy of the subsequent affidavit dated 19/07/2018, is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-8, to this writ petition.” 5. True copy of the subsequent affidavit dated 19/07/2018, is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-8, to this writ petition.” 5. Reply to the aforesaid paragraph has been given by the respondents in paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit. No specific denial has been given in reply of the contents made in paragraph 43 of the writ petition. The paragraph 12 reads as follows: “12. That the contents of paragraph No. 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52 of the writ petition are based on facts and record, hence need no comments. The petitioner seeks relief from this Hon'ble Court while the Case Crime No. 261/2017, under Sections-494, 498-A, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry of Prohibition Act, Police Station-Gahmar, District-Ghazipur is registered against the petitioner which has not been shown in the affidavit and is still pending before the Court, so the selection of the petitioner on the post of Constable has been cancelled due to this reason he has not sent him in training.” 6. Since no proof has been appended along-with the petition that whether the affidavit dated 19.7.2018 was duly submitted by the petitioner with the respondents or not, no order to clarify the situation the counsel for the petitioner was directed to file was granted time to file an affidavit in this regard vide order dated 5.1.2024. Pursuant to the aforesaid a supplementary-affidavit has been filed in case the copy of the information provided to the petitioner under Right to Information Act. From perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that the affidavit dated 19.7.2018 was duly submitted by the petitioner. The information provided under Right to Information Act as appended at supplementary-affidavit page 10, which reads as follows: 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. From perusal of the record it is clear that a subsequent affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner disclosing pendency of his criminal case against him dated 19.7.2018. In the case of Neelesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (Writ A No. 8197 of 2019) decided on 11.7.2019. The order dated 11.7.2019 reads as follows: “Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 21485 of 2018, which was disposed of vide following orders passed on 27.10.2018: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. The order dated 11.7.2019 reads as follows: “Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 21485 of 2018, which was disposed of vide following orders passed on 27.10.2018: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. The petitioner participated and was selected in recruitment carried out for Constable in Civil Police and PAC by Advertisement published in the year 2015. He had been shown as an accused in Case Crime No. 384 of 2016. An F.I.R. was lodged at P.S. Amaria District Pilibhit under Sections 323, 504 and 354 IPC. However, he submitted an affidavit on 8.6.2018 not disclosing the said information, although there is a specific column i.e. Column No. 8 in which the affidavit had to be filed which cast a specific duty on the applicant to disclose even pending cases. After the affidavit was filed by the petitioner saying that he was not an accused in any criminal case, the petitioner filed a revised affidavit on 15.6.2018 saying that whatever opinion he had disclosed in the earlier affidavit regarding non-pendency of any criminal cases, was due to wrong advise and he is now disclosing that he is an accused in Case Crime No. 384 of 2016. A final report has also been submitted by the Investigating Officer on 14.7.2016. He also stated in the said affidavit that he is withdrawing his earlier affidavit. However, no decision has been taken by the Appointing Authority on the revised affidavit. It has, therefore, been prayed that this Court may direct the respondents/Appointing Authority to take appropriate decision in the matter. Reference has been made to a Division Bench judgment render by this Court in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 734 of 2016 (State of U.P. and others v. Vinay Kumar) decided on 6.12.2016. It has, therefore, been prayed that this Court may direct the respondents/Appointing Authority to take appropriate decision in the matter. Reference has been made to a Division Bench judgment render by this Court in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 734 of 2016 (State of U.P. and others v. Vinay Kumar) decided on 6.12.2016. The Court had considered the guidelines laid down in paragraph 38 of the judgment rendered in case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 and after quoting the said guidelines observed as follows: “Thus at the end of the day final call in the matter has to be taken by the Appointing Authority as to whether person of such antecedent should be offered appointment or not and that too when the job in question is in reference of a person in dress and incumbent has to be taken on rolls as one of the member of disciplined force. Apex Court in the case of R. Radha Krishna v. D.G.P. 2008 (1) SCC 660 , considered a case where appointment in police force was sought, and held that 'once the intention is to obtain appointment in uniformed service obviously the standard expected of a person intended to serve in such service is different from the one of a person who intended to serve in other services. In view of this, order passed by the learned Single Judge is not being approved by us, we, accordantly set aside the order dated 11.5.2016 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7288 of 2016 (Vinay Kumar v. State of U.P. and others) and dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the Appointing Authority to take final call on the matter as to whether petitioner could be sent for training or not, based on the character verification report, as has been so received, preferably within period of next two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With the above, present Special Appeal stands disposed off.” It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the State-respondents however, that in a similar case in Special Appeal Defective No. 639 of 2016 (State of U.P. and others v. Rajeev Kumar), the Division Bench has allowed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 24.10.2016. With the above, present Special Appeal stands disposed off.” It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the State-respondents however, that in a similar case in Special Appeal Defective No. 639 of 2016 (State of U.P. and others v. Rajeev Kumar), the Division Bench has allowed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 24.10.2016. In that case also the respondent was only an accused in an F.I.R. lodged in the year 2013 in Case Crime No. 182 of 2013. An interim order was granted in writ petition on 11.4.2016 for his consideration by the Appointing Authority. This interim order was challenged by the State of U.P. by filing an Special Appeal. The Court referred to a Full Bench decision of the High Court at Hyderabad in the case of B. Ramakrishna Yadav and another v. Superintendent of Police and another, AIR 2016 Hyd 147 and observed that the entire law on the subject was examined and it was observed that verification of character and antecedents is an important feature and is directly related to the issue of whether a selected candidate is suitable for the post. The Full Bench then proceeded to hold that a person having criminal antecedents cannot be placed in a police force on account of great faith and confidence which the people repose in it. When a person with such antecedents suppresses information about his involvement in a criminal case irrespective of whether the case was pending or whether he had been acquitted, such a candidate cannot as a matter of right seek an order of appointment. It was further observed that in such a situation, it is always open to the employer to exercise its discretion. Since the affidavit filed by the respondent amounted to a clear suppression of a material fact, this Court set aside the order passed by the writ Court and allowed the appeal filed by the State of U.P. and at the same time dismissed the writ petition. The learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated 5.10.2018 in Writ-A No. 21337 of 2918 (Shivam Maurya v. State of U.P. and others) saying that in a similar matter this Court has dismissed the writ petition. The learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated 5.10.2018 in Writ-A No. 21337 of 2918 (Shivam Maurya v. State of U.P. and others) saying that in a similar matter this Court has dismissed the writ petition. However in that case the candidate in question already stood convicted and has been released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 by the Trial Judge who had also imposed monetary penalty/fine upon him. It has also been pointed out that this Court had considered the declaration that was made by the candidate that he was not convicted by the Court of law and also affidavit filed consciously by him on his selection, not disclosing such conviction. This Court should, therefore, not interfere with the order impugned because the person who seeks appointment in a disciplined force like the police, engaged for prevention and detect of crime and for maintenance of law and order should have complete and unimpeachable integrity and strength of character. This Court finds from a perusal of the judgment by the Division Bench on 6.12.2016 in the case of Vinay Kumar (supra) and from the judgment and order dated 24.10.2016 in the special appeal of State of U.P. v. Rajeev Kumar (supra), that in both these judgments the ultimate decision has been left to be taken by the employer. Therefore, this Court disposes off this writ petition with a direction to the Superintendent of Police, District Sitapur (respondent No. 4) to take an informed decision in the matter after going through the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others (supra) and also the judgments rendered by this Court as aforesaid, and the Circulars issued by the Police Headquarters in this regard. The petitioner shall file a representation to the Superintendent of Police, District Sitapur alongwith copies of all the judgments as cited above, within a period of three weeks from today. The Superintendent of Police, District Sitapur shall take an informed decision within a period of three weeks thereafter.” The authority concerned has examined petitioner's claim and rejected it vide order impugned dated 2.1.2019. The Superintendent of Police, District Sitapur shall take an informed decision within a period of three weeks thereafter.” The authority concerned has examined petitioner's claim and rejected it vide order impugned dated 2.1.2019. This order is assailed in the present petition on the ground that the earlier order passed by this Court has not been complied with inasmuch as petitioner's revised affidavit filed on 15.6.2018, disclosing the factum of criminal case registered against him, has not been examined. It is contended that subsequent developments have also intervened as per which petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case on 3.12.2018. Noticing such contention, learned Standing Counsel was granted time to obtain instructions in the matter. However, learned Standing Counsel has not been able to obtain instructions. Perusal of the order dated 2.1.2019 would go to show that neither petitioner's subsequent affidavit filed on 15.6.2018 has been taken note of nor the factum of petitioner's acquittal has been dealt with. Para 38.8 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and other, (2016) 8 SCC 471 , permits the appointing authority to examine these aspects while taking into consideration the seriousness of the crime. Para 38.4.3 otherwise contemplates that where acquittal order has been passed the same would have to be examined while taking an appropriate decision in the matter. Since the observation regarding submission of affidavit on 15.6.2018 in the earlier order passed by this Court is not found to have been complied with, and there is otherwise non consideration of relevant materials, as such the order impugned dated 2.1.2019 cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The matter stands remitted to the appointing authority for passing a fresh order, keeping in view the previous order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 21485 of 2018 as also the observations made above. Petitioner is granted liberty to appear before the respondent No. 2 alongwith certified copy of this order on 30.7.2019 and place all materials in support of his claim. The required consideration would be made by the authority concerned within a period of two months, thereafter. The factum of second affidavit and petitioner's acquittal would be specifically examined. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.” 9. The required consideration would be made by the authority concerned within a period of two months, thereafter. The factum of second affidavit and petitioner's acquittal would be specifically examined. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.” 9. Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pramod Singh Kirar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others in Civil Appeal No. 8934-8935 of 2022 and Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 14571-14572 of 2022 decided on December 02, 2022. In this view of the matter, it is argued that petitioner is entitled for consideration of his case pursuant to the affidavit filed by him dated 19.7.2018. 10. On the other hand it is stated by learned Standing Counsel that since material facts has been concealed by the petitioner while joining the post in question he was rightly not permitted to join the post in question. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 12. From perusal of the record it transpires that though in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner directions were given to the authorities to decide the claim of the petitioner as per the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and other, (2016) 8 SCC 471 , but the order impugned has been passed without considering the aforesaid aspect. 13. Apart from the same from perusal of the record it is clear that in the subsequent affidavits filed by the petitioner on 19.7.2018 the factum of criminal case registered against him was disclosed by him but this aspect of the matter has not been examined by the respondents while passing the order impugned. 14. In this view of the matter and since further affidavit has been filed by the petitioner on 19.7.2018 and since the same was not taken into consideration by the respondent No. 2 while passing the order impugned dated 17.1.2019, the Court is of the opinion that the aforesaid order is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. 15. The writ petition is allowed. 16. 15. The writ petition is allowed. 16. The matter is remanded to the appointing authority for passing a fresh order taking in view of the earlier order passed by this Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner dated 31.8.2018 in Writ A No. 18593 of 2018 (Bablu Kumar v. State of U.P. and others) and also observations made in the case of Neelesh Kumar (supra) and in the case of Pramod Singh Kirar (supra). The petitioner is granted liberty to appear before the respondent No. 4 along-with certified copy of this order within a period of four weeks from today and place all materials in support of his claim. The required consideration be made by the authority concerned within two months, thereafter. The factum of filing of second affidavit will be examined by the authority concerned while taking a decision afresh.