Jainendra Singh @ Vakil vs State of U.P. and Others

Shishir Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order impugned dated 27.10.2007 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra and order dated 11.09.2007, passed by Inspector General of Police (Establishment), Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad, as well as the order dated 11.09.2007, passed by the State Government. Further, a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and to pay him salary regularly along with arrears.

The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that petitioner on the basis of applications invited by the respondents for the post of Constable in Civil Police made an application along with various other persons and was considered for the same. The physical test was held in the month of October, 2006 and ultimately the petitioner cleared in the physical test and was permitted to appear in the written examination, which was held on 05.11.2006. The persons who qualified in the written examination were called for interview which was held in the month of November 2006. The selected candidates were directed to appear in the medical examination after which the final select list was declared and ultimately they were sent for training. At the time of consideration of the claim of the petitioner, a declaration form in the nature of affidavit as well as various information was to be given by the petitioner regarding his conduct and involvement in any criminal or civil case, if any. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted the declaration form to the authority concerned. It appears that the declaration made by the applicant was sent for verification and ultimately an order dated 27.10.2007 was passed by the respondents terminating the appointment/services of the petitioner on the ground that while giving the affidavit, the petitioner has concealed the fact regarding involvement in criminal case under Sections 147, 323, 336 I.P.C., which was pending in the court and on that basis though the petitioner has been acquitted by the court upon the charges mentioned above, but it was treated to be concealment of fact at the time of filling the form, therefore, the services of the petitioner has been terminated.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner was acquitted by the competent court vide its order dated 04.01.2007, therefore, it cannot be treated to be concealment. In case the petitioner could have been convicted by the criminal court, then this fact can be taken into consideration by the authority concerned that the petitioner for the purpose of obtaining employment has concealed this fact and has not declared regarding the involvement of the criminal case. Further submission has been made that in case an opportunity should have been given to the petitioner, he would have been in a position to submit before the authority that it cannot be treated to be concealment for the purpose of obtaining employment.

The petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition and learned Standing Counsel was directed to file a counter affidavit within a period of one month. As the counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged, therefore, with the consent of the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally.

On behalf of learned Standing Counsel it has been submitted that at the time of recruitment the petitioner was permitted to submit an affidavit in which a clause was mentioned regarding declaration of the pendency of any criminal case against the petitioner or a declaration to that effect was to be made regarding conviction by any competent court of law. In the verification report dated 15.06.2007, it has been stated that a First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner as a Case Crime No. 277 of 1997, under Sections 147, 323, 336 I.P.C., which was decided on 04.01.2007. In that circumstances, it was proved that petitioner submitted a false affidavit and has not disclosed the correct facts, therefore, for submitting the false information the appointing authority has rightly rejected the selection of the petitioner by order dated 27.10.2007. It is settled in law that if ultimately it is found that any false information has been given, the appointment can be cancelled on the ground that false declaration has been done for obtaining employment. Admittedly from the record it was proved that at the time of consideration of the claim of the petitioner and at the time of declaration false information has been given. The apex court in the case of A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Koneti Venkateswarulu and Others, has held that suppression of any material fact at the time of employment, the cancellation of candidature and selection has been held to be valid. The same view has been taken in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav, , the relevant para of which is quoted below:-

The object of requiring information in columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form and certification thereafter by the candidate was to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to continue in service. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service. The employer having regard to the nature of the employment and all other aspects had discretion to terminate his services, which is made expressly clear in para 9 of the offer of appointment. The purpose of seeking information as per columns 12 and 13 was not to find out either the nature or gravity of the offence or the result of a criminal case ultimately. The information in the said columns was sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the respondent to continue in service or not. The High Court, in our view, has failed to see this aspect of the matter. It went wrong in saying that the criminal case had been subsequently withdrawn and that the offences, in which the respondent was alleged to have been involved, were also not of serious nature. In the present case the respondent was to serve as a Physical Education Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya. The character, conduct and antecedent of a teacher will have some impact on the minds of the students of impressionable age. The appellants having considered all the aspects passed the order of dismissal of the respondent from service. The Tribunal after due consideration rightly recorded a finding of fact in upholding the order of dismissal passed by the appellants. The High Court was clearly in error in upsetting the order of the Tribunal. The High Court was again not right in taking note of the withdrawal of the case by the State Government and that the case was not of a serious nature to set aside the order of the Tribunal on that ground as well. The respondent accepted the offer of appointment subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein with his eyes wide open. Para 9 of the said memorandum extracted above in clear terms kept the respondent informed that the suppression of any information may lead to dismissal from service. In the attestation form, the respondent has certified that the information given by him is correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief; if he could not understand the contents of column nos. 12 and 13, he could not certify so. Having certified that the information given by him is correct and complete, his version cannot be accepted. The order of termination of services clearly shows that there has been due consideration of various aspects. In this view, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that as per para 9 of the memorandum, the termination of service was not automatic, cannot be accepted.

In view of settled principle now as at the time of selection while filing an affidavit petitioner on 10.11.2006 has not disclosed this fact that any criminal case was pending against him before the criminal court and he was involved in that, therefore, it can easily be inferred that the petitioner has concealed this information and has not declared regarding pendency of the criminal case only to get the benefit of employment. If this fact would have been indicated in the affidavit and after investigation, as subsequently the petitioner has been acquitted, this should have been taken a false declaration, but admittedly he has concealed this fact, therefore, now as the apex court has taken a view that such type of concealment is fatal and appointment/engagement can be cancelled and that cannot be held to be invalid.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I see no justification to interfere. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.