Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Salil Kumar Rai, J.
Vishal Saraswat – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
WRIT - A No. - 5252 of 2024
Decided On : 22-11-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 504, 506 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - The petitioner challenged the rejection of his appointment in Provincial Civil Services due to a pending criminal case. The court held that the employer has discretion to consider the nature of the pending case and its implications on suitability for appointment. (Paras 4, 8, 13, 14)
(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that it does not sit as a court of appeal over executive decisions regarding suitability for public office, unless there is evidence of mala fides or illegality. (Paras 10, 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced charges under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, while being employed in a Central Government position. His appointment in Provincial Civil Services was denied due to the pending case.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the discretion of the State Government in rejecting the petitioner's claim based on the nature of the pending criminal case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the pendency of a criminal case justifies denial of appointment in a sensitive public service role.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the employer's discretion in assessing suitability is paramount, especially for sensitive positions, and the pendency of serious charges can justify non-appointment.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Salil Kumar Rai, J.
1. At the behest of the sister-in-law of the petitioner, Case Crime No. 731 of 2017 under Sections 498-A / 323 / 324 / 504 / 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was registered against the petitioner as well as against his elder brother, father, mother and sister on 26.07.2017 and a charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer. Charges have been framed in the said criminal case against all the accused, including the petitioner, and the trial of the case is still pending. It has been stated in the writ petition that the allegations made in the first information report are false and the attention of the Court has been drawn to the fact that the entire family of the petitioner has been implicated in the said criminal case.
2. By order dated 21.12.2020 passed by the Director, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, the petitioner was granted provisional appointment as Assistant Legislative Committee – Protocol / Executive Officer in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat. The appointment was subject to the final decision in the criminal case. The petitioner was subsequently selected in the Indian Defence Estates Service (Group ‘A’ Gazetted Post) under Directorate General of Defence Estates, Ministry of Defence and is presently posted as Chief Executive Officer, Roorkee Cantonment Board, Uttarakhand.
3. Meanwhile, the petitioner also applied in the Combined State & Upper Subordinate Service Examination, 2019 and was declared successful in the selection list published on 17.02.2021. The petitioner secured merit position no. 1 in the selections and was recommended by the Commission for appointment as Deputy Collector in the Provincial Civil Services (Executive). In his verification / declaration form, the petitioner disclosed the details of the criminal case pending against him. It has been stated in the petition that during the character verification of the petitioner, a report was sought by the Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat and the Under Secretary, Rajya Sabha forwarded an office memorandum dated 22.06.2021 reporting that the petitioner was clear from vigilance angle and that no disciplinary case was pending against him. Still the petitioner was not issued an appointment letter by the State Government, therefore, he made several representations seeking appointment in Provincial Civil Services (Executive). By order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Appointment Section – III, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, the representations of the petitioner were dismissed on the ground that a criminal case of a serious nature was pending against the petitioner. The order dated 13.03.2023 was challenged by the petitioner through Writ – A No. 6206 of 2023 and this Court vide its order dated 11.04.2023 quashed the order dated 13.3.2023 and remitted back the matter to the State Government for a fresh decision. The Additional Chief Secretary, Appointment Section – III, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow vide his order dated 28.02.2024 has again rejected the claim of the petitioner again on the ground of the pendency of criminal case reasoning that the post of Deputy District Magistrate is more sensitive than the post at present held by the petitioner. The order dated 28.02.2024 has been challenged in the present writ petition.
4. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 28.02.2024 is arbitrary and discriminatory and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it is unreasonable to deny appointment to the petitioner in Provincial Civil Services (Executive) on ground of pendency of criminal case against him even though the petitioner is in employment of the Central Government in a Group - ‘A’ Service. It was argued that the opinion expressed in the order dated 28.02.2024 that the post of Deputy District Magistrate in state of Uttar Pradesh was more sensitive t
The court upheld the discretion of the State Government to deny appointment based on the pendency of serious criminal charges, emphasizing the importance of suitability for sensitive public service r....
The mere pendency of a criminal complaint, especially from matrimonial disputes, should not disqualify a candidate from public employment.
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.
The main legal point established is that pending criminal cases, especially those involving grave moral turpitude, can justify the denial of appointment to government service, in accordance with the ....
Mere pendency of a criminal case does not disqualify a candidate for public service if the allegations are trivial and disclosed during the application process.
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 mere pendency of a criminal case not involving moral turpitude cannot justify denial of appointment, emphasizing the need for contextual evaluation of character and offences.
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
