SANJAY YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.11.2019, passed by respondent no. 2, Commandant, Provincial Arms Constabulary, 4th Battalion, Prayagraj, cancelling the selection/appointment of the petitioner on the post of Constable, PAC. The order records that the petitioner was selected on the post of Constable, PAC in pursuance of selection held in the year 2015. He was issued appointment letter dated 29.7.2018. According to the petitioner, it was followed by verification of his character and educational testimonials. He worked till 30.11.2019 at District Jail, Chitrakoot. The impugned order has been passed on the basis of a complaint made by one Bal Govind Singh, son of Late Jagdish Singh. It was alleged that the petitioner had succeeded in procuring appointment by disclosing incorrect date of birth. The allegation is that the petitioner had done his High School in the year 2005 from Baurhawa Baba Inter College, Matehu, Ghazipur, showing his date of birth as 1.7.1990. He had done Intermediate from Shanti Niketan Inter College, Barhi, Ghazipur with the same date of birth. However, he again appeared in High School Examination in the year 2013 from Mata Reshmi Devi, Balak-Balika Ucchh Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Badua Godam, Mau, wherein he mentioned his date of birth as 10.7.1996 and thereafter, appeared in Intermediate Examination in the year 2015, again mentioning his date of birth as 10.7.1996. The order also records that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the said complaint were enquired into by by Assistant Commandant and who in his report dated 5.4.2019 and supplementary report dated 20.7.2019 indicted the petitioner of the allegations levelled against him. Accordingly, the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled, for succeeding in procuring appointment by mentioning wrong date of birth.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not issued any show cause notice, nor any charge sheet, nor copy of the complaint was ever made available to him. The specific case of the petitioner is that he had appeared in High School Examination in the year 2013 and in the Intermediate Examination in the year 2015. The High School Certificate of the year 2005 and Intermediate Certificate of the year 2007 do not relate to the petitioner. The father's name of the candidate mentioned in those certificates is different. The candidate to whom those certificates belong has been shown as resident of a different district, i.e. District Ghazipur. Had the petitioner been given proper show cause notice and opportunity of hearing, he would have demonstrated the same before the authorities. It is submitted that the enquiry conducted by the Assistant Commandant in pursuance of which he submitted a report and also a supplementary report, was only a preliminary enquiry, as is evident from the copy of the enquiry report, placed on record by learned Standing Counsel, along with the instructions received by him. It is sought to be contended that the decision making process is wholly illegal and consequently, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. On 20.1.2020, the following order was passed: -

(3.) Learned standing counsel shall seek specific instructions in regard to the averments made in these paragraphs.