Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(All) 2030

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Rajeev Misra,J.
Devendra Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. And 3 Others - Respondent
WRIT - A No. - 2922 of 2022
Decided On : 31-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner:- M.C. Singh,Dushyant Singh
For Respondent:- G.A.

The competent authority must evaluate the suitability of a candidate with pending criminal charges for police service, considering the nature of the charges as per guidelines established in Avtar Singh.

Headnote:(A) Police Act - Relevant judgment: Avtar Singh vs. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 - Employment in police despite criminal charges - The authority must assess the nature of criminal charges and their relevance to the candidate’s suitability for employment based on legal standards. (Paras 6, 14, 16)

(B) Legal principles established - The decision to reject a candidate's suitability for police service must consider mitigating circumstances, especially when charges are trivial in nature, as per Avtar Singh judgment. (Paras 13, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for the police constable position, was successful in exams and tests, but faced rejection due to pending criminal case, despite claiming prior disclosure of his background.

Findings of Court:
The court stressed the necessity for the authority to review the impact of the criminal case on the candidacy, citing that the rejection lacked a substantive evaluation.

Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's candidature was legally justified given his criminal background and purported prior disclosure in affidavits.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the competent authority failed to properly evaluate the impact of the pending criminal charges on the petitioner's employment suitability, leading to an unlawful rejection of his application.

Result: Writ petition allowed, impugned orders quashed.

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents.

2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the orders dated 12.01.2022 and 07.02.2022 passed by respondent-3, Superintendent of Police, District- Pilibhit.

3. Present writ petition came up for admission on 09.03.2022 and this Court passed the following order:-

"Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted ten days' time to obtain instructions in the matter.

Put up as fresh on 24.03.2022.

Order Date :- 9.3.2022"

4. Pursuant to above order dated 09.03.2022, no counter affidavit has been filed by learned Standing Counsel.

5. Record shows that U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow issued an advertisement dated 16.11.2018, i.e., Advertisement No. PRPB-ONE-I-138 of 2018, whereby 31,360 posts of Constable in Civil Police and 18,208 posts of Constable in PAC were advertised for direct recruitment. Selections to the post so advertised were to be made in accordance to the procedure prescribed in U.P. Police Constables and Head Constables Service Rules, 2015 as amended from time to time.

6. Pursuant to aforesaid advertisement, petitioner duly applied for the post of Constable. He appeared in the written examination and qualified the same. Accordingly, petitioner was declared successful. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for the next stage of selection, i.e., document verification and physical standard test (BV/PST). In response to the same, petitioner duly appeared and participated in the physical standard test. The petitioner was also medically examined by the Medical Board on 12.03.2021.

7. At this stage of proceedings, petitioner submitted a notary affidavit dated 12.03.2021 with regard to his personal information. A call letter dated 12.03.2021 was also issued to the petitioner. Petitioner was allotted District- Pilibhit for completing his training. The petitioner submitted his joining at Pilibhit on 07.06.2021 and deposit the requisite fees also. However, petitioner was restrained from completing his training on account of non-availability of character verification of petitioner from the competent authority.

8. At this juncture, petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ-A No.8793 of 2021 (Devendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others). Aforesaid writ petition was disposed of finally vide order dated 12.11.2021, which reads as under:-

"Petitioner has been selected for appointment to the post of Constable but his candidature has been overlooked on account of the fact that character certificate has not been issued to the petitioner by the District Magistrate. Letter of District Magistrate is on record as per which the petitioner was implicated in three cases. So far as the first case being Case Crime No.417 of 2016 is concerned the proceedings have already been quashed. In the second case being Case Crime No.284 of 2018 petitioner's implication has been found wrong and the charge sheet has been submitted against other persons. The third case i.e. Case Crime No.286 of 2018 apparently is under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and according to petitioner his implication is false in that case also. It is contended that the charges otherwise are trivial in nature and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others , (2016) 8 SCC 471 the candidature of petitioner ought not to be discarded.

After examining the law on the point the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra) the Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under in para 38:-

"38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:

38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.