Court No. - 33

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16429 of 2022

Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumr Gupta

Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Vaishya

Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Satya

Prakash Singh

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri

Shri Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the Union

of India.

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner

assails the impugned order dated 05.08.2022, a

copy of which has been brought on record as

annexure no.9 whereby the letter of appointment

as issued to the petitioner, has been cancelled on

the ground that the antecedents of the petitioner

was not found satisfactory by the District

Magistrate, Balia.

Submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that in so far as the case concerned

which has been taken to be held against the

petitioner in respect thereto the petitioner has

already approached this Court in Application under

Section 482 No.30308 of 2021 (Abhishek Gupta

and another Vs. State of U.P. & another) wherein

this Court vide order dated 17.11.2021 had stayed

the further proceedings of the case No.619 of

2021. A copy of the same has been brought on

record by filing a supplementary-affidavit today

and the same is taken on record.

Noticing the aforesaid fact and the instructions as

provided by the learned Standing Counsel for the

respondents dated 09.01.2023 to indicate that the

case of the petitioner did not find favour as his

character and antecedents were not found

satisfactory on the basis of case pending.

This Court finds that the matter whether one

single case can as a matter of course can render

the candidature of the petitioner invalid needs to

be considered in light of the decision of the Apex

Court in the case of Avatar Singh Vs. Union of

India & others reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471

wherein it has been left to the authorities to take a

decision in light of the principles which has been

laid down in para 38.1 of the said decision which

reads as under:-

"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.

38.2. While passing order of termination of services or

cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the

employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case,

if any, while giving such information.

38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the

government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the

employee, at the time of taking the decision.

38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of

involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal

had already been recorded before filling of the

application/verification form and such fact later comes to

knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses

appropriate to the case may be adopted:

38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been

recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty

offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an

incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its

discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information

by condoning the lapse.

38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is

not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or

terminate services of the employee.

38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case

involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature,

on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or

benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may

consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may

take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the

employee.

38.5.