Back
PRAKASH PADIA
Ashok Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Prakash Padia, J.
1. Heard Rishabh Kesarwani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chandan Kumar, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.
2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assail the orders dated 16.11.2017, 25.5.2017 and 6.8.2006 passed by the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively which has been enclosed alongwith the petition as Annexures 1 to 3. The petitioner further prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the services of the petitioner on the post of Constable.
3. It is admitted between the parties that the matter is absolutely identical to the judgment passed by the coordiante Bench of this Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Yadav, passed in Writ-A No. 2844 of 2018 on 31.1.2023. Hence, the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief.
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was recruited as a Constable in Group-C and was posted at Police Line Gorakhpur. On 18.6.2006, the respondent No. 5 terminated the services of the petitioner and cancelled his appointment without providing any notice or opportunity of hearing. The ground for terminating the
Non-disclosure of juvenile criminal cases by candidates does not constitute concealment, and such grounds cannot invalidate employment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the suppression of material facts regarding criminal cases rendered the petitioners unfit for appointment, the provisions of the Juvenil....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the protection of juveniles under the Juvenile Justice Act, emphasizing that a juvenile in conflict with law should not suffer any disqualification....
Probationary employees may be terminated for violating appointment terms, including misrepresenting criminal history, without requiring formal procedural safeguards.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person's involvement in criminal cases as a minor does not automatically disqualify them for appointment in the police service, and relevant....
Mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from 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....
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
