HARENDRA PANWAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In nut shell the case of the petitioner is that for making appointment of Constable an advertisement? was issued calling application from the eligible candidates. In pursuance to the advertisement petitioner applied for the said post and after due completion of selection process petitioner was selected from District Etawah and was appointed as a Constable in the Police Department on 26.11.2005. After completion of the post recruitment training the petitioner was posted as Constable in District Etawah on 28.6.2006. Selection of the petitioner has been cancelled by the respondent vide order dated 18.8.2007 passed by respondentno. 2. Reasons for cancellation of the appointment are that the petitioner did not disclose that a criminal Case bearing Case Crime No. 32 of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC at P.S. Kandhala, District Muzaffar Nagar was registered against him. This order is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

(2.) Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that registration of an F.I.R. against the petitioner was not to his knowledge and he acquired the knowledge only after he had submitted his form/affidavit to the respondents. Other contention raised is that in terms of the instructions issued by the respondents vide G.O. No. 4694 dated 28.4.1958 instructions have been issued for the purposes of verification of character and antecedents of the Government Servants before their first appointment. These instructions do not envisage that petitioner is required to disclose any information regarding his character and antecedents. It enjoins upon the authority to verify the Character and antecedents of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Character Verification of the petitioner was verified by the concerned police station before appointment and in the said report it has been mentioned that the petitioner has already been acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case vide judgement and order dated 15.9.2005 and it was the respondents who after being satisfied appointed the petitioner on 26.11.2005. It is further submitted that the impugned order of dismissal has been passed without issuing any show cause notice or without conducting any disciplinary? proceedings after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and hence the same is patently illegal, arbitrary and is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Last ground taken by the petitioner is that in column 11 of the form required to be filled in by the petitioner whereby he is required to indicate as to whether he has been convicted by any competent Court. There is no requirement of furnishing the details or information regarding registration of the criminal case against the applicant. Impugned order proceeds on the assumption that the petitioner is required to disclose this information which is not factually correct. Consequently, when the authorities came to know about his involvement in a criminal case, the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Constable was cancelled for suppressing the information.