IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that termination based on non-disclosure of a past criminal case requires careful consideration of the nature of the allegations and the candidate's overall suitability.

JUDGMENT :

Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

2. The case of the petitioner-appellant as narrated in the writ petition is that the petitioner-appellant applied for the post of clerk in the Kanpur Judgeship in pursuance of the advertisement notified by the State Government on 17.6.2017 on the Government Portal. After going through the written test as well as the typing test he was finally declared selected on 2.6.2018. Thereafter, verification of the documents was made on 11.2.2019 in respect of the selected candidates including the petitioner-appellant and further the candidates were required to submit an affidavit making certain declarations. The appellant also filed an affidavit on 11.2.2019 declaring therein that no criminal case is pending against him nor he has been convicted in any case. Thereafter, the appellant-petitioner was appointed, and accordingly joined on 12.2.2019 as Misc. Clerk in the Additional Court Judgeship Kanpur Nagar.

3. The said appointment upto 30.3.2020 was of contractual nature. However, the same was extended upto 28.2.2021. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that all of sudden on 5.8.2019, the appellant received an undated show-cause notice issued by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar calling upon the explanation from the appellant to be submitted upto 6.8.2019 for alleged concealment of certain information to have been received by the authorities during the police verification regarding character and antecedents. The appellant appeared on the due date before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar and submitted his explanation stating therein that he has no criminal history. He further submits that a criminal case under Sections 354, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act was lodged against him in respect of some family dispute with the neighbour, in which final report was submitted by the concerned police on 24.11.2018, without any arrest. Therefore, there is no concealment on the part of the appellant-petitioner on the date of appointment or on the date of affidavit i.e. 11.2.2019 or 12.2.2019. The District Judge without taking into consideration the material facts that on the date of filing of the affidavit no criminal case was pending against the appellant terminated the services of the appellant vide order dated 13.9.2019. Aggrieved by the said termination order the appellant preferred writ petition having No. 16199 of 2019.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant is that Hon'ble Single Judge without taking into consideration the material aspect of the matter that on the date of filing of the affidavit no criminal case was pending against the appellant, and as such allegation of concealment of information in the declaration is baseless, dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner without proper appreciation of the materials on record vide order dated 18.10.2019. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 18.10.2019 is reproduced as under:

“It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that on bona fide belief the petitioner did not disclose that the criminal case came to be lodged against him. The third respondent, District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, in the order has noted that petitioner was fully aware of the lodging of the F.I.R. however, petitioner suppressed the material fact in obtaining appointment.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner on the date of appointment was not having any criminal case lodged/pending against him cannot be accepted for the reason that the petitioner was bound to have disclosed the lodging of the F.I.R. against him.

On specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner admits that petitioner was appointed on contract and has no legal right to continue as clerk.

Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court declines to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under