Concealing Pending Criminal Case in Appointment Affidavit Justifies Termination, Despite Later Acquittal: Allahabad High Court - 2024-07-01

Allahabad High Court Upholds Termination for Concealing Criminal Case in Affidavit, Despite Subsequent Acquittal

Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling on service matters, upheld the termination of a Group 'D' employee who had concealed a pending criminal case in his appointment affidavit, even though he was later acquitted in the said case. A Division Bench comprising Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Hon'ble Prashant Kumar, JJ., dismissed the Special Appeal filed by the employee, Ram Sewak , affirming the single judge's decision.

The Bench emphasized that furnishing truthful information, especially regarding criminal antecedents via affidavit at the time of appointment, is paramount, and deliberate concealment warrants termination, irrespective of the eventual outcome of the criminal case.

Case Background

Ram Sewak was selected for a Group 'D' post in the District Court, Etah, following an advertisement by the High Court Recruitment Cell in 2022. As per requirements, upon selection and before joining on May 24, 2023, he submitted a notarized affidavit dated May 24, 2023, explicitly stating that no criminal case was pending against him.

However, subsequent police verification revealed that Case Crime No. 392/2022 (under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC) had been registered against him on December 14, 2022. A chargesheet was filed on January 8, 2023, and the concerned Magistrate took cognizance on July 18, 2023. Following a show-cause notice, the District Judge, Etah, terminated his services on July 28, 2023, for concealing this material fact. Sewak was later acquitted in the criminal case on September 25, 2023.

His initial challenge via a writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on April 22, 2024, leading to the present Special Appeal.

Arguments Presented

Appellant ( Ram Sewak ): Argued he was unaware of the criminal case when swearing the affidavit, thus the concealment wasn't deliberate. He stressed his subsequent acquittal and cited the Supreme Court's decision in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and other cases, contending the appointing authority should have considered the seriousness of the allegations and his suitability.

Respondents (High Court/District Judge): Countered that the appellant had full knowledge of the case before swearing the affidavit. They pointed out that a notice under Section 41-A CrPC was served and endorsed by the appellant on January 8, 2023, the same day the chargesheet was filed – well before the affidavit date (May 24, 2023). They argued it was a clear case of deliberate concealment of a known fact in a mandatory affidavit. They relied on Avtar Singh and Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla v. State of Jammu and Kashmir , asserting that acquittal doesn't nullify the act of concealment and doesn't automatically entitle one to appointment, especially in judicial service where integrity is crucial.

Court's Analysis and Decision

The Division Bench meticulously examined the timeline and evidence, particularly the appellant's endorsement on the Section 41-A CrPC notice dated January 8, 2023. The Court concluded:

> "Once during the police verification it was disclosed that the aforesaid Case Crime No.392 of 2022 was registered against the petitioner, the respondent no.3 had issued a show cause notice... wherein the chargesheet was also forwarded to the competent court on 08.01.2023 and cognizance was also taken... During the investigation, notice under Section 41-A CrPC was also served upon the petitioner, which was duly endorsed by the petitioner himself on 8.1.2023."

The Bench found it undeniable that the appellant was aware of the pending criminal proceedings when he swore the affidavit on May 24, 2023, declaring otherwise.

Referring extensively to the Supreme Court's guidelines in Avtar Singh , the Court highlighted:

> "38.1 Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case... must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention..." > > "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." > > "38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."

The Court held that knowledge was clearly attributable to the appellant before he swore the affidavit. It further observed:

> "In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to pending criminal case, such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling the candidature... Moreover, it is well settled that even the acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the applicant for appointment to the post. Still, it is open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether he is suitable for appointment..."

Stressing the need for impeccable character in judicial staff, the Court cited Commissioner of Police vs. Mehar Singh and State of M.P. vs. Parvez Khan . It concluded that the appellant's act of deliberate concealment in the affidavit, despite knowing about the pending case, justified the termination.

Finding no perversity or infirmity in the Single Judge's order, the Division Bench dismissed the Special Appeal, upholding the termination of Ram Sewak 's services.