Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
Ashish Kumar Rajbhar - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Writ - A No. 5709 of 2019
Decided On : 05-11-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 147, 323, 452, 325 - SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Appointment of constable - Denial of appointment based on non-disclosure of a criminal case - The petitioner was selected for appointment but denied due to alleged concealment of a criminal case, despite not being named in the charge sheet - The Superintendent of Police's decision was found arbitrary as it disregarded the District Magistrate's recommendation and failed to consider the trivial nature of the case. (Paras 1, 2, 18, 20)
(B) Employment Law - Verification of character and antecedents - The court emphasized that mere non-disclosure of a trivial criminal case should not automatically disqualify a candidate for government service, and the appointing authority must act reasonably and consider the nature of the case and the candidate's overall character. (Paras 8, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was selected as a constable but was denied appointment due to non-disclosure of a criminal case registered against him, which he was unaware of at the time of filing his affidavit. The District Magistrate recommended him for appointment, noting he was wrongly named in the FIR.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the Superintendent of Police's order, stating that the non-disclosure of a trivial case could not be fatal for the appointment and directed the issuance of an appointment letter.
Issues: Whether the non-disclosure of a criminal case, where the candidate was not named in the charge sheet, justifies denial of appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appointing authority must consider the trivial nature of the case and the recommendations of the District Magistrate, emphasizing that arbitrary denial of appointment violates principles of fairness.
Result: Writ petition allowed, and the petitioner is entitled to appointment as constable.
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 only on the ground of non-disclosure of a criminal case registered against him even though the candidate was not named as an accused in the charge sheet and was not put on trial in the said case.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was selected for appointment as constable in the selections held in pursuance to the advertisement issued in 2015 by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow. The selected candidates were asked to file an affidavit disclosing whether any criminal case had been registered against them or was pending consideration in any court. The candidates were warned that in case any information given in the affidavit was found to be wrong, they would be liable to be dismissed or removed from service. The petitioner submitted his affidavit dated 11.06.2018 putting a cross against the column which required disclosure of criminal cases, representing that no criminal case was either registered or pending against the petitioner. It has been stated by the petitioner that subsequently he came to know that on 01.04.2017, a Criminal Case No. 0170 of 2017 under Sections 147/ 323/452/325 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 had been registered against him but the petitioner was not named in the charge-sheet which was filed on 24.05.2017. The case of the petitioner is that he came to know about the criminal case registered against him after he had filed his affidavit, therefore, he filed another affidavit dated 26.07.2018 before the respondent authorities disclosing the details of the criminal case. The District Magistrate, in his report dated 28/31.07.2018, recommended that the petitioner was fit to be appointed as Constable after noting that the petitioner had been wrongly named in the First Information Report registering Criminal Case No. 0170 of 2017 and that no other criminal case was registered against the petitioner. The said report was made by the District Magistrate in discharge of his duties under the Office Memorandum dated 28.04.1958 issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh regarding the verification of character and antecedents of applicants for government service before their first appointment. However, the Superintendent of Police, Ballia vide his order dated 04.11.2018 rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Constable on the ground that the petitioner had, in his affidavit, concealed the criminal case registered against him. While passing the aforesaid order, the Superintendent of Police, Ballia relied on Clause 8 (Ja) of the Office Instructions dated 22.05.2018 which provides that a candidate would be declared unfit for appointment if he had concealed or made any misrepresentation regarding any criminal case registered against him or regarding any trial, acquittal or conviction in a criminal case or if the candidate had been convicted for any offence involving moral turpitude.
3. The order dated 04.11.2018 was challenged by the petitioner through Writ - A No. 24973 of 2018 which was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 11.12.2018 noting the statement of the Standing Counsel that the Superintendent of Police, Ballia shall reconsider the claim of the petitioner for appointment in accordance with law. The Superintendent of Police, Ballia vide his order dated 04.03.2019 has again rejected the claim of the petitioner for being appointed as Constable in U.P. Police. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that in his first affidavit the petitioner had knowingly concealed the criminal case registered against him. The explanation of the petitioner that he had no knowledge of the criminal case at the time of filing the first affidavit has been disbelieved on the ground that the Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of the pe
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 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 minor criminal involvement does not automatically disqualify a candidate; suitability must be assessed holistically by the appointing authority.
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....
A candidate's non-disclosure of a past acquitted criminal case does not automatically justify disqualification from public service; each case must be assessed on its merits and surrounding context.
The suppression of a pending criminal case does not automatically disqualify a candidate; the nature of the offence and the candidate's overall character must be considered in recruitment decisions.
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
