IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-6109-2023 Date of Decision: 07.02.2025 Ankit ......Petitioner(s)

Versus Haryana Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Ltd. .....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. Sukesh Kumar Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Mr. Daanish Mahajan, and Mr. Vasu Gupta, Advocates, for the respondent.

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of letter dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure P-4) whereby respondent has rejected his candidature for appointment on the post of Clerk.

2. The petitioner pursuant to advertisement No.5/2019 dated 20.06.2019 issued by Haryana Staff Selection Commission applied for the post of Clerk. He filed application form on 20.07.2019. At that point of time, an FIR No.349 dated 05.06.2018 under Section 420 IPC and Section 171 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (in short '1994 Act') registered at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat was pending against him. He did not disclose in the application form that an FIR is pending against him. He came to be selected, however, was not permitted to join since he disclosed before the authorities that he is facing criminal proceedings.

3. Mr. Jindal submits that petitioner had applied for the post of Clerk. He was not aware of pendency of FIR, thus, he could not disclose said fact in his application form. He was served notice under Section 41 of Cr.P.C. on 16.08.2019 whereas application was filed on 20.07.2019. Thus, there was no occasion to disclose factum of pending FIR. The case of petitioner is squarely covered by a three-Judge Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471.

4. Per contra, Mr. Mahajan submits that petitioner was implicated in FIR registered under Section 420 IPC which was registered on 05.06.2018. The police under Section 41 Cr.P.C. had served notice upon his father much prior to filing application seeking post of Clerk. The petitioner intentionally did not disclose factum of pending FIR. Police after completing investigation has presented challan against him and even today he is facing trial. 5. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. From the perusal of record, it is evident that petitioner was implicated in FIR dated 05.06.2018. He filed application seeking post of Clerk on 20.07.2019 meaning thereby FIR was registered much prior to date of filing application. He is not disputing the fact that notice under Section 41 was served upon his father and is claiming that he himself was served notice in August' 2019. Thus, there was no occasion to disclose the factum of pending FIR. The FIR was registered under Section 420 IPC apart from Section 171 of 1994 Act. There is allegation against him that despite being minor his family members got prepared his vote and he casted his vote in Panchayat elections. The police after completing investigation has preferred challan against him and he as on day is facing trial. There was a particular column in the application form with respect to pending criminal cases. The petitioner did not disclose factum of pending criminal case.

7. A three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra) has adverted with question of appointment of a candidate who was/is involved in a criminal case. The Court after noticing plethora of judgments has culled out legal position as below:

“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.

38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellati