Rohit Saroj v. State of U.P. and
Case Details
Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7531 of 2022 Petitioner :- Rohit Saroj Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing respondents-1 to 3.
Decision
Petitioner has approached this Court for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents-3, Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur to decide the representation of petitioner dated 14.09.2021 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) submitted in compliance of order dated 01.11.2018 passed by this Court in Writ-A No.23531 of 2018 (Rohit Saroj vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others). Record shows that petitioner was selected for the post of Constable in U.P. Police. However, during scrutiny of the character of petitioner, it was discovered that a criminal case was pending against him. Consequently, no further action was taken with regard to the candidature of petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by above, petitioner approached this Court by means of Writ-A No.23531 of 2018 (Rohit Saroj vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others), which was disposed of finally vide order dated 01.11.2018. Same reads as under:- "Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Bearing in mind the nature of order which this Court proposes to pass, learned Standing Counsel has consented to disposal of this writ petition without filing of any affidavit at this stage. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 4 September 2018 in terms of which the candidature of the petitioner for training has been rejected since it came to light that he stood named and is accused in Case Crime No.540 of 2017. According to the respondents in view of the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the crime, he is ineligible for being considered for appointment in a disciplined force. In a situation like this, it is the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors 2016 (8) SCC 471. The Court after noticing the entire body of precedent on the subject laid down the following principles:- "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 information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper. 38.8 If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime. 38.9 In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form. information 38.10 For determining suppression or false attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for. 38.11 Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him." The petitioner in this case submits that there was a candid disclosure of the registration of this case in the verification form and, therefore, it is incumbent upon the respondent to consider whether the mere pendency of that case which itself alleges commission of offences of a trivial nature would disqualify him from consideration. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the fourth respondent shall in consequence reconsider the entire matter in the light of the principles enunciated in Avtar Singh (supra) and pass an order dealing with the claim of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Accordingly and without going into the merits or otherwise of the rival contentions, the writ petition shall stand disposed of in terms of the statement made by the learned Standing Counsel." It is the case of petitioner that pursuant to above order dated 01.11.2018, petitioner submitted a representation. The relevant averments regarding above, have been made in paragraph-8 of the writ petition, which are as under:- "That, in compliance of order dated 01.11.2018 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ-A Petition No.23531 of 2018, the petitioner submitted his representation along with certified copy of order dated 01.11.2018 by hand in the office of respondent No.3 within one month from the date of order but nothing has been done in the matter." On the basis of above, a pointed query was raised by Court as to how the date of representation has been mentioned as 14.09.2021. Learned counsel for petitioner could not submit any specific reply. Admittedly, the order was passed by this Court on 01.11.2018. Petitioner has been sleeping over his right for more than three years. Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of above, has therefore raised a preliminary objection by submitting that present writ petition is hopelessly barred by laches. However, the laches in filing present writ petition have not been explained. It is otherwise contended that even in case, the earlier order dated 01.11.2018 passed by this Court was not complied with, then remedy of petitioner lies before this Court by means of an application under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. On the aforesaid premise, learned Standing Counsel contends that present writ petition as presented is therefore liable to be dismissed. When confronted with above, learned counsel for petitioner could not overcome the same. In view of above, present writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 23.5.2022 Saif Digitally signed by SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN Date: 2022.05.26 10:18:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad