Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
Dinesh Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Writ - A No. 817 of 2024
Decided On : 05-11-2024
(A) Office Memorandum dated 28.04.1958 - Verification of character and antecedents of candidates for government service - The appointing authority must consider the nature of suppression and the triviality of the criminal case before disqualifying a candidate. (Paras 8, 17, 20)
(B) Criminal Law - Acquittal in criminal cases - Mere non-disclosure of trivial criminal cases does not automatically disqualify a candidate for appointment. (Paras 8, 19)
(C) Employment Law - Right to fair consideration - Candidates have a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily, and decisions must be reasonable and objective. (Paras 8, 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Review Officer but was denied appointment due to non-disclosure of two criminal cases, one of which he was acquitted of, and the other he was not named in the charge sheet.
Findings of Court:
The Joint Secretary's rejection of the petitioner's claim was arbitrary and did not consider relevant recommendations from the District Magistrate.
Issues: Whether the appointing authority can deny appointment based on non-disclosure of criminal cases, particularly when one case resulted in acquittal and the other did not name the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that trivial matters should not disqualify candidates, and the appointing authority must consider the nature of the case and the candidate's overall suitability.
Result: The order denying the petitioner's appointment was quashed, and the petitioner was directed to be appointed. (Paras 21, 22)
JUDGMENT :
Salil Kumar Rai, J.
1. The issue in the present petition is as to whether the appointing authority can deny appointment to a selected candidate on the ground of non-disclosure of criminal cases registered against him even though the candidate was not named in the charge sheet filed in one case and was acquitted in the other case.
2. No counter affidavit is required in the case as copies of instructions to the Standing Counsel and necessary documents have been handed over to the Court by the Standing Counsel.
3. The petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Samiksha Adhikari / Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari in Civil Secretariat of Public Service Commission, Board of Revenue and the office of the Chief Election Officer in pursuance to the advertisement dated 05.03.2021 issued by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission notifying the Samiksha Adhikari / Sahayak Samiksha Adhikari (General / Special Recruitment) Examination - 2021. The petitioner was selected for appointment and was asked to fill up a verification form / declaration which required the petitioner to disclose the details of the criminal case, if any, pending or registered against him. The petitioner submitted his declaration form indicating that no criminal case was either pending or registered against him. However, subsequently, the petitioner filed an affidavit stating that Case Crime No. 198 of 2019 under Sections 147/ 323/ 504/ 506/ 325 IPC and Case Crime No. 215 of 2018 under Section 354(D) IPC and Section 12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 had been registered against him. It has been stated in the writ petition that a charge-sheet had been filed in Case Crime No. 198 of 2019 registering Case No. 271 of 2020 in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has been stated that the petitioner has been acquitted in Case No. 271 of 2020 by order dated 27.03.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Bhadohi. It has been further brought on record that the petitioner was not named in the charge sheet submitted in Case Crime No. 215 of 2018
4. In his report dated 04.07.2023, the District Magistrate, Bhadohi recommended that there was no legal impediment in appointing the petitioner as Assistant Review Officer subject to the final decision of the trial court in Case Crime No. 198 of 2019. In his report, the District Magistrate noted that the petitioner was wrongly named in the First Information Report registering Case Crime No. 215 of 2018 and was not named in the charge sheet and that the petitioner was not involved in any organized crime or mafia activities and no case involving moral turpitude was pending against him. However, by order dated 11.12.2023 passed by the Joint Secretary, Secretariat Administration Section - 5 (Establishment), Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Assistant Review Officer has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner had suppressed material information regarding pendency of criminal cases against him. The order dated 11.12.2023 has been challenged in the present petition.
5. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the failure of the petitioner to disclose the pendency of criminal cases against him was not deliberate but was due to oversight and that the petitioner had subsequently filed his affidavit disclosing the two criminal cases registered against him. It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that in light of Office Memorandum dated 28.04.1958, the recommendations of the District Magistrate were relevant materials which had to be considered by the appointing authority but in his order dated 11.12.2023, the Joint Secretary has not considered the recommendations of the District Magistrate made vide his report dated 04.07.2023. It was argued that in his order dated 11.12.2023, the Joint Secretary has also not considered that t
Non-disclosure of trivial criminal cases does not disqualify a candidate for government service; the appointing authority must consider the nature of the case and the candidate's overall suitability.
Non-disclosure of a trivial criminal case does not automatically disqualify a candidate for government service; the appointing authority must consider the nature of the case and the candidate's overa....
Non-disclosure of minor criminal involvement does not automatically disqualify a candidate; suitability must be assessed holistically by the appointing authority.
The court held that the non-disclosure of a past criminal case requires careful evaluation of circumstances, and automatic cancellation of appointment is arbitrary.
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....
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 facts regarding pending criminal cases has a clear bearing on the character, conduct, and antecedents of the employee, and can lead to termination of services.
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
