Ram Kumar Vs. State
of U. P. & Ors.
O R D E R
A. K. PATNAIK, J.
is an appeal against the order dated 31.08.2009 of the Division Bench of the Allahabad
High Court in Special Appeal No.924 of 2009 dismissing the appeal of the
appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C)
No.40674 of 2007.
facts very briefly are that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the State Government
of U.P. on 19.11.2006, the appellant applied for the post of constable and he submitted
an affidavit dated 12.06.2006 to the recruiting authority in the proforma of verification
roll. In the affidavit dated 12.06.2006, he made various statements required for
the purpose of recruitment and in para 4 of the affidavit he stated that no criminal
case was registered against him.
He was selected and
appointed as a male constable and deputed for training. Thereafter, the Jaswant
Nagar Police Station, District Etawah, submitted a report dated 15.01.2007
stating that Criminal Case No.275/2001 under Sections 324/323/504 IPC was registered
against the appellant and thereafter the criminal case was disposed of by the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, on 18.07.2002 and the appellant
was acquitted by the Court. Along with this report, a copy of the order dated 18.07.2002
of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was also enclosed.
The report dated 15.01.2007
of the Jaswant Nagar Police Station, District Etawah, was sent to the Senior Superintendent
of Police, Ghaziabad. By order dated 08.08.2007, the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Ghaziabad, cancelled the order of selection of the appellant on the ground that
he had submitted an affidavit stating wrong facts and concealing correct facts and
his selection was irregular and illegal.
the appellant filed Writ Petition No.40674 of 2007 under Article 226 of the Constitution
before the Allahabad High Court but the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ
petition by his order dated 30.08.2007. The learned Single Judge held that
since the appellant had furnished false information in his affidavit in the
proforma verification roll, his case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered
by this Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Ram Ratan Yadav [(2003)
3 SCC 437] and that he was rightly terminated from service without any inquiry.
The appellant challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in Special Appeal
No.924 of 2009 but the Division Bench of the High Court did not find any merit
in the appeal and dismissed the same by the impugned order dated 31.08.2009.
counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had been acquitted by
the order dated 18.07.2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal
Case 4No.275 of 2001 and for this reason when the appellant furnished the affidavit
dated 12.06.2006 in the prescribed verification roll, four years after the
order of the acquittal, he did not think it necessary to state in the affidavit
about this criminal case.
He submitted that in any
case, a copy of the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal
Case No.275 of 2001 would show that the crime related to a minor incident which
took place on 02.12.2000 and as there was no evidence against the appellant, the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the appellant of the charges under
Sections 324/34/504 IPC. He submitted that therefore this is not a fit case in which
the selection of the appellant should have been cancelled.
He cited Commissioner
of Police and Others v. Sandeep Kumar [2011(3) SCALE 606] in which this Court
has taken a view that cancellation of candidature to the post of temporary Head
Constable for the suppression and failure to disclose in the verification
roll/application about his involvement in an incident resulting in a criminal
case under Sections 325/34 of the IPC when the candidate was a young man, was
counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the
learned Single Judge as well as the impugned order of the Division Bench of the
High Court. Besides relying on the judgment of this Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan and Others v. Ram Ratan Yadav (supra), he also relied on the counter affidavit
filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and in particular the Government Order
dated 28.04.1958 under which a verification had to be carried out with regard
to the character of the candidate who was being considered for appointment. He submitted
that in accordance with the Government instructions in the Government Order dated
28.04.1958, candidates desiring appointment to various posts in Government service
were required to submit a detailed affidavit furnishing details of their
character and antecedents.
have carefully read the Government Order dated 28.04.1958 on the subject `Verification
of the character and antecedents of government servants before their first appointment'
and it is stated in the Government order that the Governor has been pleased to lay
down the following instructions in supercession of all the previous orders: "The
rule regarding character of candidate for appointment under the State Government
shall continue to be as follows:
The character of a candidate
for direct appointment must be such as to render him suitable in all respects
for employment in the service or post to which he is to be appointed. It would be
duty of the appointing authority to satisfy itself on this point."It will be
clear from the aforesaid instructions issued by the Governor that the object of
the verification of the character and antecedents of government servants before
their first appointment is to ensure that the character of a government servant
for a direct recruitment is such as to render him suitable in all respects for
employment in the service or post to which he is to be appointed and it would be
a duty of the appointing authority to satisfy itself on this point.
the facts of the present case, we find that though Criminal Case No.275 of 2001
under Sections 324/323/504 IPC had been registered against the appellant at Jaswant
Nagar Police Station, District Etawah, admittedly the appellant had been acquitted
by order dated 18.07.2002 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah.
On a reading of the order
dated 18.07.2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate would show that
the sole witness examined before the Court, PW-1 Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, had
deposed before the Court that on 02.12.2000 at 4.00 p.m. children were quarrelling
and at that time the appellant, Shailendra and Ajay Kumar amongst other
neighbours had reached there and someone from the crowd hurled abuses and in the
scuffle Akhilesh Kumar got injured when he fell and his head hit a brick platform
and that he was not beaten by the accused persons by any sharp weapon.
In the absence of any
other witness against the appellant, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted
the appellant of the charges under Sections 323/34/504 IPC. On these facts, it was
not at all possible for the appointing authority to take a view that the appellant
was not suitable for appointment to the post of a police constable.
order dated 18.07.2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had been
sent along with the report dated 15.01.2007 of the Jaswant Nagar Police Station
to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, but it appears from the order
dated 08.08.2007 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, that he has
not gone into the question as to whether the appellant was suitable for
appointment to service or to the post of constable in which he was appointed
and he has only held that the selection of the appellant was illegal and
irregular because he did not furnish in his affidavit in the proforma of verification
roll that a criminal case has been registered against him.
As has been stated in
the instructions in the Government Order dated 28.04.1958, it was the duty of the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, as the appointing authority, to satisfy
himself on the point as to whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to
the post of a constable, with reference to the nature of suppression and nature
of the criminal case. Instead of considering whether the appellant was suitable
for appointment to the post of male constable, the appointing authority has mechanically
held that his selection was irregular and illegal because the appellant had furnished
an affidavit stating the facts incorrectly at the time of recruitment.
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Ram Ratan Yadav (supra) relied on by
the respondents, a criminal case had been registered under Sections 323, 341,
294, 506-B read with Section 34 IPC and was pending against the respondent in that
case and the respondent had suppressed this material in the attestation form. The
respondent, however, contended that the criminal case was subsequently withdrawn
and the offences in which the respondent was alleged to have been involved were
also not of serious nature.
On these facts, this Court
held that the respondent was to serve as a Physical Education Teacher in Kendriya
Vidyalaya and he could not be suitable for appointment as the character, conduct
and antecedents of a teacher will have some impact on the minds of the students
of impressionable age and if the authorities had dismissed him from service for
suppressing material information in the attestation form, the decision of the
authorities could not be interfered with by the High Court. The facts of the case
in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others v. Ram Ratan Yadav (supra) are therefore
materially different from the facts of the present case and the decision does
not squarely cover the case of the appellant as has been held by the High
the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the learned
Single Judge and the impugned order of the Division Bench and allow the writ petition
of the appellant and quash the order dated 08.08.2007 of the Senior Superintendent
of Police, Ghaziabad. The appellant will be taken back in service within a period
of two months from today but he will not be entitled to any back wages for the period
he has remained out of service. There shall be no order as to costs.
(R. V. Raveendran)
(A. K. Patnaik)