Back
RAMESH SINHA, SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
State of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Pramod Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Mohit Jauhari, the learned Standing Counsel for the Appellants and Sri Shesh Nath Bhardwaj, the learned Counsel for sole respondent.
2. The instant Intra Court Appeal has been filed by the appellant State of U.P. under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules against the judgment and order dated 27.03.2018 passed by an Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court, allowing Writ Petition No. 3878 (S/S) of 2017.
3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the appellants had made recruitments to the posts of constables in the Provincial Armed Constabulary (P.A.C.) in the year 1998. The respondent claims that he was appointed and was sent for training at the Recruitment Training Centre, Second Battalion, U.P. P.A.C. Sitapur, although no appointment letter was issued to him. At the time of recruitment, the respondent was required to submit an affidavit disclosing his antecedents and the respondent filed an affidavit dated 01.09.1998 categorically stating that as per his knowledge, neither any criminal case had been registered against him, nor had he been challaned by the police in any criminal case nor was any investigation pending against
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....
An employee who suppresses material information or gives false information cannot claim a right to continue in service.
The concealment of a pending criminal case during the employment application process can justify termination of services, as integrity and character are critical for positions within the judicial sys....
Suppression of material information in employment forms can justify cancellation of candidature, and subsequent acquittal may not warrant consideration for selection/appointment, especially in cases ....
Suppressing minor criminal information does not automatically disqualify candidates for government service; context and fairness must guide the decision-making process.
Suppression of trivial motor accident case pending at attestation does not justify termination for GDS post post-acquittal; employer discretion requires considering suitability.
The cancellation of a candidate's selection based solely on the registration of a criminal case, without evidence of complicity, is unjustified and reflects a lack of proper consideration of the fact....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
