Allahabad High Court: In an appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 against the judgment and order dated passed by the Single Judge, wherein the Court affirmed the order passed by the District Judge, by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated, the division bench of Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar, JJ. has said that the impugned judgment is just and proper as it has also elaborately dealt with each aspect of the issues involved, while affirming the order passed by the District Judge.
Background:
The petitioner applied online for Group “D” post on 15-12-2022 in pursuance of the advertisement dated 27-10-2022 issued by the High Court Recruitment Cell in the year 2020, which was completed successfully. After submitting the online form, the petitioner entered in the examination as required by the Recruitment Cell Committee and has been selected for the said post. Consequently, the Chairman, Administrative Committee, District Court Etah had issued information letter dated 20-05-2023 regarding the appointment. Thereafter, vide letter dated 01-06-2023, the District Judge, Etah had issued appointment letter to the petitioner. In response thereof, the petitioner joined the Group ‘D’ post at District Court, Etah and started discharging his duties.
As per the directions/instructions of the High Court, an undertaking on affidavit was required to be furnished by the selected candidate declaring that neither any criminal case/proceeding is pending against him/ her, nor he/she has been convicted by any criminal court. Further, if such information is not furnished at the time of joining, the candidature/ appointment of such candidate shall be forfeited/ cancelled by the appointing authority.
In the present matter, the petitioner submitted an affidavit, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that no criminal case is pending against him. Later, during police verification, it had surfaced that a case under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) has been registered against the petitioner on 14-12-2022. However, after the trial, the petitioner had been acquitted on 25-9-2023.
The appellant submitted that the Single Judge has erred in law while dismissing the writ petition and failed to consider the relevant aspect of the matter that at the time of filling up the form no criminal case was registered against the petitioner. Even the petitioner had no knowledge of criminal case at the time of swearing of affidavit for appointment. Therefore, the allegation of concealment of information in the declaration form is baseless.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court said that it is apparent that the petitioner had full knowledge about the criminal case during document verification, and he had concealed the material fact while swearing the affidavit at the time of getting employment. Later, at the time of document verification and at the time of verifying his criminal antecedents, it was found that a criminal case was pending against him and the same had been concealed.
The Court remarked that the employer is required to ensure the verification of an employee’s character and antecedents. The character and integrity of a candidate seeking appointment in the District Judgeship must be perfect and his/her antecedents clean. If a person, whose integrity is doubtful, and his/ her antecedents are not clean, he cannot claim appointment as the same may adversely affect the institution.
The Court reiterated that even the acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the applicant for appointment to the post and it is open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether he is suitable for appointment to the post. Whereas in the present matter, the dispute relates to furnishing false information at the time of appointment. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact regarding pending criminal case, such false information will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling the candidature.
The Court took note of Rule15 of U.P. State District Court Service Rules, 2013, which deals with conditions relating to suitability and certificates of characters.
The Court said that law regarding the effect and consequence of the acquittal, concealment of criminal case on appointments etc. has been settled in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, and the requirement of integrity and high standard of conduct has been highly emphasized in this case.
The Court explained that in an Intra-Court Special Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order.
The Court said that the impugned judgment is just and proper as it has also elaborately dealt with each aspect of the issues involved, while affirming the order passed by the District Judge, by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated.
[Ram Sewak v. High Court Judicature at Allahabad Recruitment Cell, 2024 SCC OnLine All 3823, decided on 01-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Appellant :- Puneet Bhadauria , Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :Ashish Mishra,C.S.C
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
