Bipin Singh vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

offence of the charge penal section against the writ petitioner are henious and the serious nature of 10 years on 25.08.2025, the Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar rejected the candidature of the writ petitioner on the ground that there happens to be a criminal case pending against the writ petitioner, wherein charge sheet has been submitted.

6. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. This Court entertained the petition on 15.10.2025, while passing the following orders: "1. Contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the order impugned does not take into account the fact that it is not the case of the respondents that there have been any concealment and mere pendency of a criminal case would not be an absolute bar for grant of appointment in view of the circular dated 28.041958 the criteria in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India : (2016) 8 SCC 471 cannot be considered.

2. Sri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted time to obtain instructions/file affidavit.

3. Put up this case on 21.11.2025 at 2:00 P.M. in the additional cause list. "

7. A short counter affidavit has been filed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No.5, sworn by the Circular Officer, Tamkuhiraj, Kushinagar, which is taken on record.

8. A statement has been made by learned counsel for the writ petitioner that he does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit and the writ petition be decided on the documents available on record.

9. Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal, learned counsel for the writ petitioner is sought to argue 3 WRIA No. 15389 of 2025 that the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar cannot be sustained for the simple reason that though it is always open for the Appointing Authority to take a decision not to accord selection and appointment of a Police Personnel in the wake of the fact that a criminal case is pending but the said decision should be backed by independent application of mind.

10. Submission is that here in the present case, on the basis of the inputs so provided by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur on 08.07.2025 regarding pendency of the criminal case against the writ petitioner without independent application of mind, the Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar has rejected the candidature, which is not permissible under law. Reliance has been placed upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471, Civil Appeal No.5902 of 2012, Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of UP and others decided on 22.02.2024 and the also a judgment of Special Appellate Bench in Special Appeal No.67 of 2023 (Umesh Chand Vs. State of U.P.) decided on 24.03.2023.

11. Shri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel while countering the submissions so made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner sought to argue that the writ petitioner does not possess an indefeasible right to be accorded appointment and posting, however, it is subject to conditions which the employer may impose obviously, advertisement, rules and the criteria in that regard. According to him, since the writ petitioner is possessed with a criminal case, thus the appointing authority has taken a decision not to accord appointment to the writ petitioner.

12. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record.

13. Facts are not in issue. It is not in issue that the writ petitioner was a candidate who applied in pursuant to an advertisement published in the year 2023 for the post of Constable Civil Police. The rules governing the said subject is by the name and nomenclature of Uttar Pradesh Civil Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2008, which stood amended in the year 2015. It is also admitted to the parties that the writ 4 WRIA No. 15389 of 2025 petitioner had disclosed the factum of lodging of the criminal case. Now, a question arises whether in the wake of pendency of a criminal case, the writ petitioner can be denuded of his benefit for being accorded appointment or not. In order to reach to a conclusion, it would be apposite to refer the judgment in Avtar Singh (supra), wherein the following was observed:- "34. No doubt about it that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess suitability and it is open to employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects.

35. Suppression of "material" information presupposes that what is suppressed that "matters" not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases.

36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects.

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 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 recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted: 5 WRIA No. 15389 of 2025

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.

38.10. For determining suppression or false information 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." 6 WRIA No. 15389 of 2025 (Emphasis supplied)

14. Further, in Ravindra Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court went on to add, as also:- "21. As would be clear from Avtar Singh (Supra), it has been clearly laid down that though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment, he or she has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily. The exercise of power has to be in a reasonable manner with objectivity and having due regard to the facts. In short, the ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria after due consideration of all relevant aspects.

22. Avtar Singh (Supra) also noticed the judgment in Commissioner of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644. In Sandeep Kumar (supra), this Court set out the story of the character "Jean Valjean" in Victor Hugo's novel Les Miserables, where the character was branded as a thief for stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family. It also discussed the classic judgment of Lord Denning in Morris v. Crown Office, (1970) 2 QB 114 and concluded as follows:- "10... In our opinion, we should display the same wisdom as displayed by Lord Denning.

11. As already observed above, youth often commits indiscretions, which are often condoned.

12. It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Sections 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter." Thereafter, in Avtar Singh (supra) dealing with Sandeep Kumar (supra), this Court observed as under: "24.............. This Court has observed that suppression related to a case when the age of Sandeep Kumar was about 20 years. He was young and at such age people often commit indiscretions and such indiscretions may often be condoned. The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him a criminal all his life. In [Morris v. Crown Office, (1970) 2 QB 114: (1970) 2 WLR 792 (CA)]. the observations made were that young people are no ordinary criminals. There is no violence, dishonesty or vice in them. They were trying to preserve the Welsh language. Though they have done wrong but we must show mercy on them and they were permitted to go back to their studies. to their 7 WRIA No. 15389 of 2025 parents and continue the good course."

23. In Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2011) 14 SCC 709, another case noticed and discussed in Avtar Singh (Supra) arising out of near identical facts and construing a similar clause in the verification form, this Court, while granting relief, held as follows:- "9. We have carefully read the Government Order dated 28-4-1958 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 supersession 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 the duty of the appointing authority to satisfy itself on this point. xxx xxx

12. On a reading of the order dated 18-7-2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate it would show that the sole witness examined before the court, PW 1. Mr Akhilesh Kumar, had deposed before the court that on 2-12-2000 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.

13. The order dated 18-7-2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had been sent along with the report dated 15-1-2007 of Jaswant Nagar Police Station to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, but it appears from the order dated 8-8-2007 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 pro forma of verification roll that a criminal case has been registered against him.

14. As has been stated in the instructions in the Government Order dated 28-4-1958, 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 8 WRIA No. 15389 of 2025 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. xxx xxx

17. For 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 8-8-2007 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." Ram Kumar (supra) was also a case of cancellation of selection to the post of Constable.

24. More recently in Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India and Another, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 532, involving appointment to the post of Constable in Railway Protection Force and setting aside the order of discharge due to alleged suppression in the verification form, this Court, after noticing Avtar Singh (Supra) held as under:- "11. This cannot be disputed that the candidate who intends to participate in the selection process is always required to furnish correct information relating to his character and antecedents in the verification/attestation form before and after induction into service. It is also equally true that the person who has suppressed the material information or has made false declaration indeed has no unfettered right of seeking appointment.or continuity in service, but at least has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to be judiciously exercised by the competent authority in a reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts of the case on hand. It goes without saying that the yardstick/standard which has to be applied with regard to adjudging suitability of the incumbent always depends upon the nature of post nature of duties, effect of suppression over suitability to be considered by the authority on due diligence of various aspects but no hard and fast rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard.

13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into 9 WRIA No. 15389 of 2025 consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What being noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of material false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service.

19. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 17th November. 2015 and the order of discharge dated 24th April, 2015 and dated 23rd December, 2021 are hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant in service on the post of Constable on which he was selected pursuant to his participation in reference to employment notice no. 1/2011 dated 27th February, 2011. We make it clear that the appellant will not be entitled for the arrears of salary for the period during which he has not served the force and at the same time he will be entitled for all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits, etc. Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of one month from today. No costs."

15. As a matter of fact, the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015 and amended in the year 2017 enacted in exercise of the power under Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 46 read with sub-section (3) of the Police Act, 1861. Rule 16 of the said rules provides as under:- "16. Character Verification shall be completed under the supervision of appointing authority before issuing of appointment letter and before sending the candidates for training. Ordinarily character verification shall be completed within a month. On adverse fact coming to light during character verification of any candidate, he shall be declared unfit by the appointing authority and such vacancies shall be carried forward for next selection."

16. In Umesh Chand (supra), the Special Appellate Bench had the occasion to consider the import and the impact of the circular dated 28th April.1958, wherein the following was observed:- "The learned Counsel for the appellant has invited the attention towards Government Order dated 28.02.1958 providing for the verification of the character and antecedents of government servant before their first appointment. Submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that in view of the note appended to para 3 (a) of the Government Order in question a conviction need not by itself involve the refusal of a certificate of a good 10 WRIA No. 15389 of 2025 character. In nutshell the argument is that here in the present case there is no order of conviction but only criminal case has been lodged that to not of moral turpitude or heinous crime but assault made in the Panchayat meeting while taking side of his father by the writ petitioner against the other rival fraction. It further sought to be argued that the fourth respondent, the Commandant, 30th Battalion, PAC Gonda being the appointing authority has not applied its mind as to whether such types of offenses would be a ground to negate the claim of the writ petitioner for training and appointment. Though, a specific query was made to the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as to whether there exits any other rule or guideline for rejecting the candidature for recruitment of a candidate the moment he is found implicated in criminal case, however, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel while inviting attention of the court towards supplementary counter affidavit has only referred to Rule 16 of the 2015 Rules so as to contend that when adverse is found in the character of a candidate then he is declared unfit. There is no assertion in the supplementary counter affidavit that the Government Order dated 28.04.1958 has either been superseded or it is not applicable. In view of the stand taken by the State-respondents as well as in absence of any provisions of law being pointed before us, we have no option but to presume that the Government Order dated

28.04.1958 is occupying the field providing for the modalities of verification of character of antecedents of Government servants before their fresh appointment. Once the Government Order dated 28.04.1958 provides that mere conviction cannot be a ground to withhold appointment then in these circumstances the case of the writ petitioner is to be accorded fresh consideration particularly in view of the fact that there was a complete and full disclosure of the pendency of the criminal case and also the additional fact that he has not been convicted by criminal court. ............... Judgments relied upon by the learned Chief Standing Counsel in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (supra) is a case wherein the employee did not disclose about the factum of pendency of a criminal case which even in fact dis-entitled him to be accorded appointment though he was subsequently acquitted as the question of trust intervened and the employer was held to be legally justified in not continuing the employee in employment. Here in the present case there is no allegation of non-disclosure or concealment , thus the judgment in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (supra) is distinguishable. So far as the case of Methu Meda (supra) is concerned the same is relatable to import and impact of acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. It was held that for claiming appointment, in a criminal case the acquittal should be honorable and not the benefit of doubt. Similarly the case of Chetan Jeff (supra) is also 11 WRIA No. 15389 of 2025 distinguishable on the facts, particularly when in the said case there was concealment and material suppression of pendency of criminal case, which is lacking the present case at hand. With regard to reliance placed upon by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) is concerned, the same is also not applicable in the present case as in the said case the Hon'ble Apex Court held that acquittal in a criminal case could not automatically make entitled a candidate for appointment to a post as still it would not be open to the employer to consider antecedents whether the candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post. The judgment in the case of Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla (supra) is not also applicable as it was a case wherein the candidate suppressed the material fact of pendency of the criminal case. In view of the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), the appointing authority is enjoined to take into consideration the Government Order/instructions/rules applicable to an employee, at the time of taking a decision as to whether mere pendency of a criminal case would be a ground to negate the claim of a candidate for being selected and appointed in public service. The said consideration is absolutely lacking in the order impugned before the writ court and further the Government Order dated 21.04.1958 providing for the modalities for verification of character and antecedents of the Government servants before their first appointment had also not been looked into, thus in the firm opinion of the Court, the matter needs to be re-considered by the appointing authority afresh in the background of the facts available in the case of the writ petitioner."

17. Now, if we come to the impugned order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar. The same reads as under: आदेश "उत्तर प्रदेश पुिलस आरक्षी तथा मुख्यआरक्षी सेवा िनयमावली 2015 एव (प्रथम संशोधन) िनयमावली-2017 के अनुसार पुिलस महािनदेशक उ०प्र० द्वारा अिधयािचत िरिक्तयों के सापेक्ष आरक्षी ना०पु० एवं आरक्षी पीएसी के पदों पर सीधी भतीर् 2023 के अन्तर्गत अभ्यथीर्-िबिपन िसह पुत्र भीम िसह अनुक्रमांक-2597072 स्थायी पता-ग्राम व पोस्ट-सब्बलपुर कलां थाना-जमािनया, गाजीपुर उत्तर प्रदेश को अपर पुिलस अधीक्षक स्थापना, मुख्यालय पुिलस महािनदेशक, उ०प्र० लखनऊ के पत्र संख्याः डीजी-चार-स्था० (आरक्षी भतीर् 2023)2025/1990 िदनाक-

30.05.2025 द्वारा जनपद कु शीनगर आवंिटत िकये जाने के फलस्वरूप अभ्यथीर् की पत्रावली पुिलस अधीक्षक गाजीपुर द्वारा अनापित्त प्रमाण पत्र के रूप में अनुपयुक्त होने का उल्लेख करते हुए अभ्यथीर् चेकिलस्ट पिरिशष्ट-"ध" संलग्नकर उपलब्ध करायी गयी है। 2-पत्रावली का अवलोकन व पिरशीलन िकये जाने पर पाया गया है िक थाना जमािनयां, गाजीपुर की आख्या िदनाक

24.05.2025 के अनुसार आरक्षी ना०पु० के पद पर चयिनत अभ्यथीर्- िबिपन िसह पुत्र भीम िसह िनवासी 12 WRIA No. 15389 of 2025 सब्बलपुर कलां थाना जमािनयां गाजीपुर के िवरूद्ध मु0अ0सं0 47/2024 धारा 147,149,307,323,504,506 भादिव का अिभयोग थाना स्थानीय पर पंजीकृ त है। िजसका आरोप पत्र संख्या-A88/2024 िदनांक 25.04.2024 मा0 न्यायालय गाजीपुर में प्रेिषत िकया गया जो मा० न्यायालय में िवचाराधीन है। उक्त अभ्यथीर् के वरूद्ध अिभयाग पजीकृ त होने पर शासनादेश संख्या-4694/ii-बी-321-1947 िदनांक 28.04.1958 में िनिहत व्यवस्थानुसार आरक्षी ना०पु० पद पर चयिनत अभ्यथीर् को राजकीय सेवा हेतु उपयुक्तता/अनुपयुक्तता के सम्बन्ध में िजलािधकारी गाजीपुर ने अपने पत्र संख्याः 89/15-जे0ए0/2025 िदनांक 08.07.2025 द्वारा अिभमत उपलब्ध कराया गया है िक "प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में अभ्यथीर् के िवरूद्ध पंजीकृ त अिभयोग सदोष आपरािधक मानव वध कािरत करने के प्रयास की श्रेणी का गम्भीर प्रकृ ित का अपराध है, िजसमें 10 वषर् की सजा व जुमार्ने का प्रािवधान है तथा Offence of heinous/serious nature की पिरिध में स्पष्ट रूप से आता है। मा० उच्चतम न्यायालय ने अपने िनणर्य में यह भी िनदेर्श िदये हैं िक Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial an nature, employer may cancel. 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. चू ँिक प्रकरण trivial nature का न होकर offence of heinous/serious nature का है और न्यायालय में िवचाराधीन है, इस कारण अिभयुक्त की उपयुक्तता प्रथम दृष्टया िविधसम्मत प्रतीत नहीं होती है। अतः उपरोक्त तथ्यों के आधार पर श्री िविपन िसह का चिरत्र एवं पूवर्वृत्त का सत्यापन िकया जाना िविधक प्रतीत नहीं होता है।" अतः मुख्यालय पुिलस महािनदेशक उ०प्र० लखनऊ द्वारा आरक्षी ना०पु० सीधी भतीर्-2023 के सम्बन्ध में िनगर्त "प्रबन्ध एवं व्यवस्था" सम्बन्धी िदशा-िनदेर्श की बुकलेट व पुिलस आरक्षी तथा मुख्य आरक्षी सेवा िनयमावली 2015 एवं (प्रथम संशोधन) िनयमावली-2017 में िनिहत व्यवस्थानुसार अभ्यथीर् िबिपन िसह पुत्र भीम िसह अनुक्रमांक- 2597072 स्थायी पता-ग्राम/पोस्ट-सब्बलपुर कलां थाना-जमािनया, गाजीपुर उत्तर प्रदेश का *उपविणत तथ्यों/अिभलेखीय साक्ष्यों के दृिष्टगत आरक्षी ना०पु० पद का चयन/अभ्यथर्न िनरस्त िकया जाता है।"

18. Argument is that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh (supra), the Appointing Authority is required to accord independent application of mind and to take a decision whether on the basis of the inputs provided by the authorities enjoined under law is a case for selection and appointment or not.

19. A bare look of the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, District Kushinagar would reveal that he had not accorded any inpendent satisfaction over the matter as there is nothing on record to substantiate the fact that the gravity of the offences were considered by the said authority. Since, there happens to be no independent application of mind 13 WRIA No. 15389 of 2025 and the Appointing Authority got swayed with the inputs provided by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur. In the opinion of the Court and the Court something more was required i.e. an independent application of mind while recording reasons in coming to the conclusions, as in view of the law laid down in Avtar Singh (supra) as followed in Ravindra Kumar (supra), even otherwise considerations ought to have been bestowed to the circular dated 28th April, 1958, which itself ipso fact does not denude the applicant or candidate for selection and appointment on the premise that there happens to be an order of conviction against him. On a pointed query being raised to Ms. Archana Tyagi, learned Standing Counsel whether there happens to be any independent application of mind and whether it is forthcoming, the answer is in negative. Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided in the following terms:- (i). The order dated 25.8.2025 passed by the Superintendent of Police, District Kushinagar is set aside. (ii). Matter stands remitted back to the Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. (iii). While setting aside the order, this Court in no manner whatsoever has accorded automatic appointment to the writ petitioner, however, the same would be dependent upon the final orders to be passed post setting aside of the order today in that regard.

20. The writ petition is disposed of. November 21, 2025 Anurag/- (Vikas Budhwar,J.)

offence of the charge penal section against the writ petitioner are henious and the serious nature of 10 years on 25.08.2025, the Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar rejected the candidature of the writ petitioner on the ground that there happens to be a criminal case pending against the writ petitioner, wherein charge sheet has been submitted.

6. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. This Court entertained the petition on 15.10.2025, while passing the following orders: "1. Contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the order impugned does not take into account the fact that it is not the case of the respondents that there have been any concealment and mere pendency of a criminal case would not be an absolute bar for grant of appointment in view of the circular dated 28.041958 the criteria in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India : (2016) 8 SCC 471 cannot be considered.

2. Sri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted time to obtain instructions/file affidavit.

3. Put up this case on 21.11.2025 at 2:00 P.M. in the additional cause list. "

7. A short counter affidavit has been filed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No.5, sworn by the Circular Officer, Tamkuhiraj, Kushinagar, which is taken on record.

8. A statement has been made by learned counsel for the writ petitioner that he does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit and the writ petition be decided on the documents available on record.

9. Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal, learned counsel for the writ petitioner is sought to argue 3 WRIA No. 15389 of 2025 that the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar cannot be sustained for the simple reason that though it is always open for the Appointing Authority to take a decision not to accord selection and appointment of a Police Personnel in the wake of the fact that a criminal case is pending but the said decision should be backed by independent application of mind.

10. Submission is that here in the present case, on the basis of the inputs so provided by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur on 08.07.2025 regarding pendency of the criminal case against the writ petitioner without independent application of mind, the Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar has rejected the candidature, which is not permissible under law. Reliance has been placed upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471, Civil Appeal No.5902 of 2012, Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of UP and others decided on 22.02.2024 and the also a judgment of Special Appellate Bench in Special Appeal No.67 of 2023 (Umesh Chand Vs. State of U.P.) decided on 24.03.2023.

11. Shri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel while countering the submissions so made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner sought to argue that the writ petitioner does not possess an indefeasible right to be accorded appointment and posting, however, it is subject to conditions which the employer may impose obviously, advertisement, rules and the criteria in that regard. According to him, since the writ petitioner is possessed with a criminal case, thus the appointing authority has taken a decision not to accord appointment to the writ petitioner.

12. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record.

13. Facts are not in issue. It is not in issue that the writ petitioner was a candidate who applied in pursuant to an advertisement published in the year 2023 for the post of Constable Civil Police. The rules governing the said subject is by the name and nomenclature of Uttar Pradesh Civil Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2008, which stood amended in the year 2015. It is also admitted to the parties that the writ 4 WRIA No. 15389 of 2025 petitioner had disclosed the factum of lodging of the criminal case. Now, a question arises whether in the wake of pendency of a criminal case, the writ petitioner can be denuded of his benefit for being accorded appointment or not. In order to reach to a conclusion, it would be apposite to refer the judgment in Avtar Singh (supra), wherein the following was observed:- "34. No doubt about it that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess suitability and it is open to employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects.

35. Suppression of "material" information presupposes that what is suppressed that "matters" not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases.

36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects.

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 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 recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted: 5 WRIA No. 15389 of 2025

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.

38.10. For determining suppression or false information 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." 6 WRIA No. 15389 of 2025 (Emphasis supplied)

14. Further, in Ravindra Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court went on to add, as also:- "21. As would be clear from Avtar Singh (Supra), it has been clearly laid down that though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment, he or she has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily. The exercise of power has to be in a reasonable manner with objectivity and having due regard to the facts. In short, the ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria after due consideration of all relevant aspects.

22. Avtar Singh (Supra) also noticed the judgment in Commissioner of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644. In Sandeep Kumar (supra), this Court set out the story of the character "Jean Valjean" in Victor Hugo's novel Les Miserables, where the character was branded as a thief for stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family. It also discussed the classic judgment of Lord Denning in Morris v. Crown Office, (1970) 2 QB 114 and concluded as follows:- "10... In our opinion, we should display the same wisdom as displayed by Lord Denning.

11. As already observed above, youth often commits indiscretions, which are often condoned.

12. It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Sections 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter." Thereafter, in Avtar Singh (supra) dealing with Sandeep Kumar (supra), this Court observed as under: "24.............. This Court has observed that suppression related to a case when the age of Sandeep Kumar was about 20 years. He was young and at such age people often commit indiscretions and such indiscretions may often be condoned. The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him a criminal all his life. In [Morris v. Crown Office, (1970) 2 QB 114: (1970) 2 WLR 792 (CA)]. the observations made were that young people are no ordinary criminals. There is no violence, dishonesty or vice in them. They were trying to preserve the Welsh language. Though they have done wrong but we must show mercy on them and they were permitted to go back to their studies. to their 7 WRIA No. 15389 of 2025 parents and continue the good course."

23. In Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2011) 14 SCC 709, another case noticed and discussed in Avtar Singh (Supra) arising out of near identical facts and construing a similar clause in the verification form, this Court, while granting relief, held as follows:- "9. We have carefully read the Government Order dated 28-4-1958 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 supersession 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 the duty of the appointing authority to satisfy itself on this point. xxx xxx

12. On a reading of the order dated 18-7-2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate it would show that the sole witness examined before the court, PW 1. Mr Akhilesh Kumar, had deposed before the court that on 2-12-2000 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.

13. The order dated 18-7-2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had been sent along with the report dated 15-1-2007 of Jaswant Nagar Police Station to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, but it appears from the order dated 8-8-2007 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 pro forma of verification roll that a criminal case has been registered against him.

14. As has been stated in the instructions in the Government Order dated 28-4-1958, 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 8 WRIA No. 15389 of 2025 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. xxx xxx

17. For 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 8-8-2007 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." Ram Kumar (supra) was also a case of cancellation of selection to the post of Constable.

24. More recently in Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India and Another, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 532, involving appointment to the post of Constable in Railway Protection Force and setting aside the order of discharge due to alleged suppression in the verification form, this Court, after noticing Avtar Singh (Supra) held as under:- "11. This cannot be disputed that the candidate who intends to participate in the selection process is always required to furnish correct information relating to his character and antecedents in the verification/attestation form before and after induction into service. It is also equally true that the person who has suppressed the material information or has made false declaration indeed has no unfettered right of seeking appointment.or continuity in service, but at least has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to be judiciously exercised by the competent authority in a reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts of the case on hand. It goes without saying that the yardstick/standard which has to be applied with regard to adjudging suitability of the incumbent always depends upon the nature of post nature of duties, effect of suppression over suitability to be considered by the authority on due diligence of various aspects but no hard and fast rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard.

13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into 9 WRIA No. 15389 of 2025 consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What being noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of material false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service.

19. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 17th November. 2015 and the order of discharge dated 24th April, 2015 and dated 23rd December, 2021 are hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant in service on the post of Constable on which he was selected pursuant to his participation in reference to employment notice no. 1/2011 dated 27th February, 2011. We make it clear that the appellant will not be entitled for the arrears of salary for the period during which he has not served the force and at the same time he will be entitled for all notional benefits, including pay, seniority and other consequential benefits, etc. Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of one month from today. No costs."

15. As a matter of fact, the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015 and amended in the year 2017 enacted in exercise of the power under Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 46 read with sub-section (3) of the Police Act, 1861. Rule 16 of the said rules provides as under:- "16. Character Verification shall be completed under the supervision of appointing authority before issuing of appointment letter and before sending the candidates for training. Ordinarily character verification shall be completed within a month. On adverse fact coming to light during character verification of any candidate, he shall be declared unfit by the appointing authority and such vacancies shall be carried forward for next selection."

16. In Umesh Chand (supra), the Special Appellate Bench had the occasion to consider the import and the impact of the circular dated 28th April.1958, wherein the following was observed:- "The learned Counsel for the appellant has invited the attention towards Government Order dated 28.02.1958 providing for the verification of the character and antecedents of government servant before their first appointment. Submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that in view of the note appended to para 3 (a) of the Government Order in question a conviction need not by itself involve the refusal of a certificate of a good 10 WRIA No. 15389 of 2025 character. In nutshell the argument is that here in the present case there is no order of conviction but only criminal case has been lodged that to not of moral turpitude or heinous crime but assault made in the Panchayat meeting while taking side of his father by the writ petitioner against the other rival fraction. It further sought to be argued that the fourth respondent, the Commandant, 30th Battalion, PAC Gonda being the appointing authority has not applied its mind as to whether such types of offenses would be a ground to negate the claim of the writ petitioner for training and appointment. Though, a specific query was made to the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as to whether there exits any other rule or guideline for rejecting the candidature for recruitment of a candidate the moment he is found implicated in criminal case, however, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel while inviting attention of the court towards supplementary counter affidavit has only referred to Rule 16 of the 2015 Rules so as to contend that when adverse is found in the character of a candidate then he is declared unfit. There is no assertion in the supplementary counter affidavit that the Government Order dated 28.04.1958 has either been superseded or it is not applicable. In view of the stand taken by the State-respondents as well as in absence of any provisions of law being pointed before us, we have no option but to presume that the Government Order dated

28.04.1958 is occupying the field providing for the modalities of verification of character of antecedents of Government servants before their fresh appointment. Once the Government Order dated 28.04.1958 provides that mere conviction cannot be a ground to withhold appointment then in these circumstances the case of the writ petitioner is to be accorded fresh consideration particularly in view of the fact that there was a complete and full disclosure of the pendency of the criminal case and also the additional fact that he has not been convicted by criminal court. ............... Judgments relied upon by the learned Chief Standing Counsel in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (supra) is a case wherein the employee did not disclose about the factum of pendency of a criminal case which even in fact dis-entitled him to be accorded appointment though he was subsequently acquitted as the question of trust intervened and the employer was held to be legally justified in not continuing the employee in employment. Here in the present case there is no allegation of non-disclosure or concealment , thus the judgment in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (supra) is distinguishable. So far as the case of Methu Meda (supra) is concerned the same is relatable to import and impact of acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. It was held that for claiming appointment, in a criminal case the acquittal should be honorable and not the benefit of doubt. Similarly the case of Chetan Jeff (supra) is also 11 WRIA No. 15389 of 2025 distinguishable on the facts, particularly when in the said case there was concealment and material suppression of pendency of criminal case, which is lacking the present case at hand. With regard to reliance placed upon by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav (supra) is concerned, the same is also not applicable in the present case as in the said case the Hon'ble Apex Court held that acquittal in a criminal case could not automatically make entitled a candidate for appointment to a post as still it would not be open to the employer to consider antecedents whether the candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post. The judgment in the case of Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla (supra) is not also applicable as it was a case wherein the candidate suppressed the material fact of pendency of the criminal case. In view of the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), the appointing authority is enjoined to take into consideration the Government Order/instructions/rules applicable to an employee, at the time of taking a decision as to whether mere pendency of a criminal case would be a ground to negate the claim of a candidate for being selected and appointed in public service. The said consideration is absolutely lacking in the order impugned before the writ court and further the Government Order dated 21.04.1958 providing for the modalities for verification of character and antecedents of the Government servants before their first appointment had also not been looked into, thus in the firm opinion of the Court, the matter needs to be re-considered by the appointing authority afresh in the background of the facts available in the case of the writ petitioner."

17. Now, if we come to the impugned order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar. The same reads as under: आदेश "उत्तर प्रदेश पुिलस आरक्षी तथा मुख्यआरक्षी सेवा िनयमावली 2015 एव (प्रथम संशोधन) िनयमावली-2017 के अनुसार पुिलस महािनदेशक उ०प्र० द्वारा अिधयािचत िरिक्तयों के सापेक्ष आरक्षी ना०पु० एवं आरक्षी पीएसी के पदों पर सीधी भतीर् 2023 के अन्तर्गत अभ्यथीर्-िबिपन िसह पुत्र भीम िसह अनुक्रमांक-2597072 स्थायी पता-ग्राम व पोस्ट-सब्बलपुर कलां थाना-जमािनया, गाजीपुर उत्तर प्रदेश को अपर पुिलस अधीक्षक स्थापना, मुख्यालय पुिलस महािनदेशक, उ०प्र० लखनऊ के पत्र संख्याः डीजी-चार-स्था० (आरक्षी भतीर् 2023)2025/1990 िदनाक-

30.05.2025 द्वारा जनपद कु शीनगर आवंिटत िकये जाने के फलस्वरूप अभ्यथीर् की पत्रावली पुिलस अधीक्षक गाजीपुर द्वारा अनापित्त प्रमाण पत्र के रूप में अनुपयुक्त होने का उल्लेख करते हुए अभ्यथीर् चेकिलस्ट पिरिशष्ट-"ध" संलग्नकर उपलब्ध करायी गयी है। 2-पत्रावली का अवलोकन व पिरशीलन िकये जाने पर पाया गया है िक थाना जमािनयां, गाजीपुर की आख्या िदनाक

24.05.2025 के अनुसार आरक्षी ना०पु० के पद पर चयिनत अभ्यथीर्- िबिपन िसह पुत्र भीम िसह िनवासी 12 WRIA No. 15389 of 2025 सब्बलपुर कलां थाना जमािनयां गाजीपुर के िवरूद्ध मु0अ0सं0 47/2024 धारा 147,149,307,323,504,506 भादिव का अिभयोग थाना स्थानीय पर पंजीकृ त है। िजसका आरोप पत्र संख्या-A88/2024 िदनांक 25.04.2024 मा0 न्यायालय गाजीपुर में प्रेिषत िकया गया जो मा० न्यायालय में िवचाराधीन है। उक्त अभ्यथीर् के वरूद्ध अिभयाग पजीकृ त होने पर शासनादेश संख्या-4694/ii-बी-321-1947 िदनांक 28.04.1958 में िनिहत व्यवस्थानुसार आरक्षी ना०पु० पद पर चयिनत अभ्यथीर् को राजकीय सेवा हेतु उपयुक्तता/अनुपयुक्तता के सम्बन्ध में िजलािधकारी गाजीपुर ने अपने पत्र संख्याः 89/15-जे0ए0/2025 िदनांक 08.07.2025 द्वारा अिभमत उपलब्ध कराया गया है िक "प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में अभ्यथीर् के िवरूद्ध पंजीकृ त अिभयोग सदोष आपरािधक मानव वध कािरत करने के प्रयास की श्रेणी का गम्भीर प्रकृ ित का अपराध है, िजसमें 10 वषर् की सजा व जुमार्ने का प्रािवधान है तथा Offence of heinous/serious nature की पिरिध में स्पष्ट रूप से आता है। मा० उच्चतम न्यायालय ने अपने िनणर्य में यह भी िनदेर्श िदये हैं िक Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial an nature, employer may cancel. 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. चू ँिक प्रकरण trivial nature का न होकर offence of heinous/serious nature का है और न्यायालय में िवचाराधीन है, इस कारण अिभयुक्त की उपयुक्तता प्रथम दृष्टया िविधसम्मत प्रतीत नहीं होती है। अतः उपरोक्त तथ्यों के आधार पर श्री िविपन िसह का चिरत्र एवं पूवर्वृत्त का सत्यापन िकया जाना िविधक प्रतीत नहीं होता है।" अतः मुख्यालय पुिलस महािनदेशक उ०प्र० लखनऊ द्वारा आरक्षी ना०पु० सीधी भतीर्-2023 के सम्बन्ध में िनगर्त "प्रबन्ध एवं व्यवस्था" सम्बन्धी िदशा-िनदेर्श की बुकलेट व पुिलस आरक्षी तथा मुख्य आरक्षी सेवा िनयमावली 2015 एवं (प्रथम संशोधन) िनयमावली-2017 में िनिहत व्यवस्थानुसार अभ्यथीर् िबिपन िसह पुत्र भीम िसह अनुक्रमांक- 2597072 स्थायी पता-ग्राम/पोस्ट-सब्बलपुर कलां थाना-जमािनया, गाजीपुर उत्तर प्रदेश का *उपविणत तथ्यों/अिभलेखीय साक्ष्यों के दृिष्टगत आरक्षी ना०पु० पद का चयन/अभ्यथर्न िनरस्त िकया जाता है।"

18. Argument is that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh (supra), the Appointing Authority is required to accord independent application of mind and to take a decision whether on the basis of the inputs provided by the authorities enjoined under law is a case for selection and appointment or not.

19. A bare look of the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, District Kushinagar would reveal that he had not accorded any inpendent satisfaction over the matter as there is nothing on record to substantiate the fact that the gravity of the offences were considered by the said authority. Since, there happens to be no independent application of mind 13 WRIA No. 15389 of 2025 and the Appointing Authority got swayed with the inputs provided by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur. In the opinion of the Court and the Court something more was required i.e. an independent application of mind while recording reasons in coming to the conclusions, as in view of the law laid down in Avtar Singh (supra) as followed in Ravindra Kumar (supra), even otherwise considerations ought to have been bestowed to the circular dated 28th April, 1958, which itself ipso fact does not denude the applicant or candidate for selection and appointment on the premise that there happens to be an order of conviction against him. On a pointed query being raised to Ms. Archana Tyagi, learned Standing Counsel whether there happens to be any independent application of mind and whether it is forthcoming, the answer is in negative. Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided in the following terms:- (i). The order dated 25.8.2025 passed by the Superintendent of Police, District Kushinagar is set aside. (ii). Matter stands remitted back to the Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. (iii). While setting aside the order, this Court in no manner whatsoever has accorded automatic appointment to the writ petitioner, however, the same would be dependent upon the final orders to be passed post setting aside of the order today in that regard.

20. The writ petition is disposed of. November 21, 2025 Anurag/- (Vikas Budhwar,J.)