MOHD KAYUM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner after selection was recruited and appointed as a constable in police force on 19.6.2006. After completing training he was posted as constable at Police Station Dauki, district Agra on 14.8.2007. By means of order dated 25.10.2007 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Agra the candidature of the Petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that at the time of recruitment he filed a false affidavit in relation column provided for declaration in respect of criminal cases registered or pending against him as he failed to disclose the case crime No. 13 of 1996 under Section 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and case crime No. 43 of 2001 under Section 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in District Kannauj.

(2.) Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner was appointed in the year 2007 and case crime No. 13 of 1996 was registered on 24.1.1996 and subsequently vide order dated 31.7.2003 passed by the Special Judge, S.C. and S.T. Act in S.T. No. 28 of 1997 he was acquitted. In respect of case crime No. 43 of 2001, it has been submitted that the First Information Report was registered behind the back of the Petitioner and during the course of investigation it was found he was falsely implicated in the said case hence he was not charge sheeted. Categorical averments in this regard have been made in paragraph 16,17, 18 & 19 of the writ petition. It has further been submitted that since there was No. clause requiring that if there was a criminal case in the past and has resulted in acquittal, then also the fact was to be mentioned in the declaration form and thus Petitioner in good faith did not disclose about the case crime No. 13 of 1996 as he was acquitted. In respect of other case crime No. 43 of 2001 is concerned, it is submitted that since the implication of the Petitioner in the said case was found to be false during investigation and he was not charge sheeted as such he again did not disclose the same.

(3.) A counter affidavit on behalf of the State Respondents has been filed wherein the fact that the Petitioner was acquitted in case crime No. 13 of 1996 and he was not charge sheeted in case No. 43 of 2001 and his implication was found to be false has been admitted in paragraph 5. The only submission made by learned Standing Counsel is that since two criminal cases were registered against the Petitioner and despite the fact that in one case he had been acquitted and in other case his implication was found to be false, a declaration in that regard was required to be given in the affidavit and non-disclosure amounts to concealment and in such circumstances, Respondent No. 4 rightly came to the conclusion that Petitioner obtained the appointment by concealing the fact of criminal cases and his appointment has rightly been cancelled.