IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.
Satyendra Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (A) No. 16791 of 2023
Decided On : 09-01-2024
Suppression of Pending Criminal Case - Appointment on Sensitive Post - [Uttar Pradesh Civil Court Staff Centralized Recruitment 2022-23] - [Sections 498A, 354 IPC, Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act] - The court upheld the cancellation of the petitioner's candidature for the post of Stenographer Grade III due to deliberate suppression of a pending criminal case, citing the legal principle that suppression of material facts regarding pending criminal cases has a clear bearing on the character, conduct, and antecedents of the employee, and can lead to termination of services.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's candidature for the post of Stenographer Grade III was cancelled due to deliberate suppression of a pending criminal case. The petitioner had initially declared 'No' against the columns requiring disclosure of pending criminal cases, but later submitted an affidavit disclosing the pending criminal case after being declared successful in the selection process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner deliberately suppressed the fact of the pending criminal case, and the subsequent acquittal did not dilute the suppression/concealment of material facts, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner was not fit for appointment on the sensitive post of Stenographer in the Civil Court.
Issues: The key issue was whether the petitioner's deliberate suppression of the pending criminal case justified the cancellation of his candidature for the post of Stenographer Grade III.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles established in the judgments of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India, Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India, and State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Bhupendra Yadav, which emphasized that suppression of material facts regarding pending criminal cases has a clear bearing on the character, conduct, and antecedents of the employee, and can lead to termination of services.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the cancellation of the petitioner's candidature for the post of Stenographer Grade III due to deliberate suppression of a pending criminal case, citing the petitioner's lack of fitness for appointment on a sensitive post in the Civil Court.
JUDGMENT :
MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Himanshu Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 and Ms. Bushra Maryam, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 2 and 3.
2. Petitioner through this writ petition has assailed the order dated 11.8.2023 passed by the Chairman, Documents Verification Committee/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj, whereby his candidature for the post of Stenographer Grade III has been cancelled on the ground that at the time of submission of application for appointment, he had suppressed/concealed material information relating to pendency of a criminal case against him.
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that an advertisement was issued for the Uttar Pradesh Civil Court Staff Centralized Recruitment 2022-23, whereby applications were invited from eligible candidates for appointment on the posts of Stenographer Grade III. Petitioner submitted his application in prescribed proforma for appointment on the post of Stenographer Grade III and in the said application, against the columns where candidate was required to give information regarding pending criminal cases, he has written ‘No’.
4. The final result of the selection for the post of Stenographer Grade III was declared on 16.5.2023 and petitioner was declared successful. Petitioner after declaration of aforesaid result submitted a notarial affidavit on 26.5.2023, whereby he disclosed that a criminal case registered as Case Crime No. 143 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 354 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibtion Act is pending against him. After submission of the aforesaid affidavit by the petitioner, a show cause notice was issued by the Chairman, Documents Verification Committee/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj, whereby petitioner was required to submit his explanation as to why he has concealed the information relating to pendency of a criminal case against him, at the time of submission of application form.
5. Petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid show cause notice dated 7.6.2023, on 12.6.2023, wherein he has admitted that a criminal case was pending on the date of submission of application form for appointment on the post of Stenographer Garde III but since his form was filled in by the operator of a cyber cafe, as such he has written ‘No’ against the column, where petitioner was required to disclose the criminal cases pending against him therefore, non disclosure of pending criminal case cannot be treated as deliberate suppression of the material facts and further, the said mistake may be condoned by treating it to be a clerical error. The Chairman, Documents Verification Committee/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj has considered the reply submitted by the petitioner and has passed the order on 11.8.2023, wherein finding has been recorded that petitioner while submitting application form for appointment on the post of Stenographer Grade III has deliberately suppressed/concealed the facts regarding pendency of criminal case against him. Further finding has been recorded that the post of Stenographer Grade III of the Civil Court is a sensitive post and on the said post the person who has suppressed/concealed facts regarding pendency of criminal case against him cannot be appointed. The Chairman, Documents Verification Committee/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj vide his order dated 11.8.2023 has cancelled the candidature of the petitioner.
6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since application form submitted by the petitioner was filled in by the operator of a cyber cafe therefore, inadvertently he had written ‘No’ against the columns under which petitioner was required to make disclosure about the pending criminal cases therefore, petitioner cannot be held responsible for deliberate suppression/concealment of facts regarding pendency of criminal case. It has further
Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Bhupendra Yadav
Suppression of material facts regarding pending criminal cases has a clear bearing on the character, conduct, and antecedents of the employee, and can lead to termination of services.
The deliberate furnishing of false information about the non-pendency of a criminal case can warrant the cancellation of candidature or termination of service, as per the guidelines laid down in rele....
Non-disclosure of minor criminal involvement does not automatically disqualify a candidate; suitability must be assessed holistically by the appointing authority.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of full disclosure of criminal cases in the Attestation Form and the employer's discretion in considering antecedents for employme....
A candidate's non-disclosure of a past acquitted criminal case does not automatically justify disqualification from public service; each case must be assessed on its merits and surrounding context.
Suppression in attestation form requires knowledge of fact; for low-level non-sensitive posts, non-disclosure of unaware pending trivial criminal case (acquitted) not material, does not axiomatically....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.