Court No. - 6

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6418 of 2020

Petitioner :- Pinku Singh

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Mishra,Pardeep

Kumar

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

This present writ petition has been filed alleging that in terms of

the advertisement for filling up the post of police constable and

constable/P.A.C. in the year 2013. The petitioner had applied

for being appointed and has also passed medical test. However,

the petitioner was not granted the joining as such the present

writ petition has been filed.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the State wherein it has been

stated that at the time of police verification/character

assessment, it was revealed that one case being a Case Crime

No.136 of 2018 was pending against the petitioner under

Section 452/323/504 IPC registered at P.S. Thanabhawa,

District Shamli and as such the petitioner could not be

absorbed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the said ground is

not the available to the respondents unless the exercise is

carried out and findings are recorded in accordance with the

mandate of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of

Avatar Singh Vs. Union of India 2016 (8) SCC 471 wherein

the Apex Court in paragraph no. 38 of the judgment in Avtar

Singh (supra) has held as under:

"38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile

them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize 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.

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 recourse

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 In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a

concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider

antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

38.6 In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character

verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature,

employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may

appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.

38.7 In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple

pending cases such false informatio