SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 981

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, JJ.
Ram Sewak – Appellant
Versus
Hon'ble High Court Judicature At Allahabad Recruitment Cell And 2 Others – Respondents
Special Appeal No. - 557 of 2024
Decided on : 01-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Puneet Bhadauria
For the Respondent: Ashish Mishra,C.S.C.

IMPORTANT POINT
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 system.

Headnote:

EMPLOYMENT - Termination of Services - Uttar Pradesh State District Court Service Rules, 2013; Avtar Singh v. Union of India; Pawan Kumar v. Union of India; Nikhilesh Kumar Gautam v. State of UP; Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla v. State of Jammu and Kashmir; Commissioner of Police v. Mehar Singh; State of M.P. v. Parvez Khan - The court discussed the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh State District Court Service Rules, 2013, particularly Rule 15 regarding the suitability and character certificates required for appointment. The court emphasized the importance of truthful disclosure of any criminal proceedings against candidates, referencing the Supreme Court's rulings in Avtar Singh and related cases. The court concluded that the concealment of a pending criminal case by the petitioner justified the termination of his services, as integrity and character are paramount for employment in the judicial system.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner applied for a Group 'D' post in the District Court after responding to an advertisement. He was appointed but later terminated due to the discovery of a pending criminal case against him, which he had failed to disclose in his affidavit during the application process.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had knowledge of the pending criminal case at the time of submitting his affidavit and had concealed this information. The court upheld the termination of his services, stating that integrity and character are essential for employment in the judicial system.

Issues: Whether the petitioner concealed material information regarding a pending criminal case in his affidavit, and whether this justified the termination of his employment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the concealment of a pending criminal case is a serious matter that undermines the integrity required for judicial positions. The employer has the right to terminate employment based on such concealment, regardless of the outcome of the criminal case.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the termination of the petitioner's services due to the concealment of a pending criminal case.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Puneet Bhadauria, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.04.2024 passed in Writ A No.4727 of 2024 (Ram Sewak vs. Hon'ble High Court Judicature at Allahabad and 2 others) whereby learned Single Judge has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition at the admission stage. For ready reference, the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

    “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel appearing for the High Court. Present writ petition has been filed against the order 28.7.2023 passed by the respondent no.3 by which the services of the petitioner has been terminated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the advertisement dated 27.10.2022 issued by the High Court recruitment cell in the year 2020-23 the petitioner applied for the post of Group "D" on 15.12.2022. After completing the selection process appointment letter no. 1245 dated 1.6.2023 was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner joined his duties at District Court, Etah on 24.5.2023. The petitioner has submitted an affidavit wherein it has been specifically mentioned that no criminal proceeding is pending against him. During the police verification it has been found that Case Crime No. 392/2022 under section 232, 452, 504, 506, of IPC is pending against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner was not aware about the pendency of the aforesaid criminal proceedings before applying for the said post. He prays for allowing the writ petition on the ground that he was not aware about the criminal case being pending against him. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the High Court submits that the petitioner has full knowledge about criminal case and concealed the same while filing the affidavit. He further submits that it has specifically been mentioned in paragraph no. 7 and 8 of the affidavit that no criminal case is pending against him. He further submits that since the criminal case is pending against the petitioner the impugned order has rightly been passed and the writ petition may be dismissed.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the materials on record, the Court finds that since the criminal case was pending against the petitioner and in the affidavit the petitioner has concealed the same, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. No interference is called for in the impugned order dated 28.7.2023.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.”

3. The brief facts of the case culled out from the record are that in pursuance of the advertisement No.02/Sub Court/Group 'D'/2022 dated 27.10.2022 issued by the High Court Recruitment Cell in the year 2020- 23 the petitioner applied online for Group "D" post on 15.12.2022, which was completed successfully. After submitting the online form the petitioner entered in the examination as required by the Recruitment Cell Committee and has been selected for the said post. Consequently, the Chairman, Administrative Committee, District Court Etah had issued information letter no.131 dated 20.05.2023 regarding the appointment. Thereafter, vide letter no.1245 dated 01.06.2023, the respondent no.3 i.e. District Judge, Etah had issued appointment letter to the petitioner. In response thereof, the petitioner joined the Group 'D' post at District Court, Etah and started discharging his duties.

4. It further transpires from the record that as per para-6 of the directions/instructions of the High Court, an undertaking on affidavit was required to be furnished by the selected candidate declaring that neither any criminal case/proceeding is pending against him/her nor he/she has been convicted by any criminal court. Further, if such information is not furnished at the time of joining, the candid

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              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

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top