The employer has the right to consider the antecedents and suitability for appointment based on the suppression of material information and false declaration by the employee.

JUDGMENT :

Suneet Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and Sri Arimardan Singh Rajpoot, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 18 February, 2021, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the petition filed by the appellant seeking direction to the respondents to sent him for training and, thereafter, appoint him on the post of Sub-Inspector, pursuant to joint examination 2011, came to be dismissed on merit, as well as, on the ground of delay.

3. The second respondent Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, Lucknow (For short 'Board'), issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Sub-Inspector in 2011. The appellant/petitioner came to be selected for the post of Sub-Inspector Platoon Commander, pursuant to the select list dated 20 September, 2019, notified by the second respondent. Thereafter, appellant/petitioner appeared for medical examination on 11 November, 2018 and was declared successful. For document verification, petitioner filed a notary affidavit in November, 2018, before the competent authority, wherein, petitioner did not disclose the criminal case that was lodged against the petitioner and that petitioner faced trial in a criminal case.

4. It appears that respondents non-suited the petitioner for having suppressed material information with regard to the criminal cases, that came to be lodged against the petitioner in 2011, though in 2012, petitioner came to be acquitted. The District Magistrate, accordingly, did not verify the character certificate of the petitioner. Petitioner came to be tried in N.C.R. Case No. 3 of 2006, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The case came to be compromised under Section 320 I.P.C. by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 22, Gorakhpur, vide order dated 25.05.2012. In Case Crime No. 1056 of 2010, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C., petitioner came to be acquitted vide order dated 03.09.2011, by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 22, Gorakhpur.

5. Learned Standing Counsel, on the direction of the coordinate Bench of this court has produced the record of the petitioner and submitted that in the affidavit dated 08 November 2019, petitioner did not disclose about the criminal cases which was earlier lodged against him, though, specifically asked for..

6. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avatar Singh vs. Union of India and others, 2016 (8) SCC 471. Paragraph no. 38.4.1 and 38.4.2 reads thus :-

"38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.

38.4.2 Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee."

7. It is submitted that since the nature of the offence was trivial and petitioner was acquitted, therefore, the cases were not disclosed on the, bona fide, belief that no such case on the date of affidavit was pending against the petitioner.

8. Attention of the Court has been drawn by learned Standing Counsel to paragraph 38.10 of Avatar Singh (supra), wherein, it is mandated that all the information, which was required is to be specifically, mentioned/disclosed in the attestation/verification form. In such cases, action can be taken on the basis of suppression of submitting false information, as to a fact. Paragraph No. 38.10 is extracted :-

38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed.