Point of Law: Service Law - Post of Constable - Criminal prosecutions faced by him was part of recruitment process - Examination of suitability of candidates for appointment: Role of Criminal Antecedents - process of recruitment to public office - Verification of character and antecedents is one of the important features in service jurisprudence so as to find out whether a selected candidate is suitable to the post. Having regard to the antecedents of a candidate, if appointing authority finds that it is not desirable to appoint such person, in particular to a discipline force, it can deny employment or even terminate such person, if appointed, within the shortest possible time from the date of verification of character and antecedents. This has to be scrupulously followed in case of recruitment in police force, it being a disciplined force - Court, do not establish any perversity in the findings. In these facts, disclosure of the criminal cases by the petitioner is not a defence against cancellation of his selection

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Bhanot, J.

1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 15.06.2020 passed by respondent no. 3- Superintendent of Police, Jalaun, cancelling his selection as Constable in the U.P. Police.

2. The judgment is being structured in the following conceptual framework to facilitate the discussion:

I. Introduction

II. Submissions of learned counsels

III. Facts

IV. Legal perspectives

IV.i. Examination of suitability of candidates for appointment

A Material for formation of opinion before the authority

B Nature of proceedings

C Standard of evidence & Impact of chargesheet

D Procedure for enquiry

IV.ii Line of Enquiry by the authorities

A. Consideration of criminal cases

B. Mitigating factors

IV.iii Decision of the authority

V. Analysis of facts and conclusions

I. Introduction:

3. The recruitment process for various posts in the U.P. Police was initiated by notification dated 14.01.2018. The petitioner applied in response to the said notification. The petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of Constable in the UP Police.

4. The declaration made by the petitioner in the affidavit of verification on 22.04.2019 during the recruitment process disclosed following criminal cases:

^^¼1½ ,ulhvkj 131@2015 /kkjk 323] 504] 506 vkbZ-ih-lh-] Fkkuk gkFkjl xsV esa nks"keqDr gS
¼2½ ,QvkbZvkj ua 0030@2018 efgyk Fkkuk gkFkjl /kkjk 498] 323] 504] 506 vkbZihlh rFkk ngst vf/kfu;e 3] 4 ls nks"keqDr
¼3½ ,QvkbZvkj ua0760@2018 /kkjk 354¼p½ 120&ch] 504] 506] 11] 22 67¼a,½ vkbZihlh esa fopkjk/khu foospuk/khu^^

5. The petitioner was denied appointment as Constable. Being aggrieved the petitioner approached this Court by instituting a writ petition, registered as Writ A No. 3547 of 2020, Sanny Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others. The operative portion of the judgment in Sanny Kumar (supra) dated 04.03.2020 is extracted hereinunder:

“In view of the above, as no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending, with the consent of parties the matter is being decided at this stage. It is directed that in case petitioner approaches the respondent no. 3 through a comprehensive representation along with certified copy of this order within fifteen days from today, the respondent no. 3 shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, keeping in mind the guidelines issued by Apex Court in case of Avtar Singh (Supra), and taking into account the result of the criminal cases lodged against the petitioner, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of representation of petitioner.”

6. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, the impugned order dated 15.06.2020 was passed.

II. Submissions of learned counsels:

7. Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel assisted by Shri Rateesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had truthfully declared details of all the criminal cases pending against him in the affidavit of verification. The petitioner has not been chargesheeted in two cases. One of the cases is an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute of his brother. The impugned order has overlooked the acquittal of the petitioner by the court in one criminal case. The authority has not adopted any standard of evidence while considering the material against the petitioner. In absence of conviction by a court, appointment cannot be refused.

8. Per contra, Shri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. submits that the petitioner was named in multiple criminal cases. The petitioner was not acquitted honourably by the trial court in the first case. The petitioner was named in the first information reports lodged in the other cases including one for an act of moral turpitude. The fact that the Investigation Officer did not chargesheet the petitioner does not exonerate the petitioner, particularly, when trials are on foot.

9. The competent authority gave full consideration to all material facts in the right perspective. Persons with such criminal profiles are not fit for