RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In nut shell the case of the petitioner is that for making appointment of Constable an advertisement dated 23.7.2005 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 Mainpuri and was appointed as a Constable in the Police Department on 19.6.2006. After completion of the post recruitment training the petitioner was posted as Constable at Police Station Pinhat, District Agra on 16.8.2007. Selection of the petitioner has been cancelled by the respondent vide order dated 25.10.2007. Reasons for cancellation of the appointment are that the petitioner did not disclose that a criminal Case bearing Case Crime No. 246 of 2005 under Sections 336, 504, 506, 323 IPC was registered against him with P.S. Baldev, District Mathura on 16.12.2005. This order is subject-matter of challenge before this Court. 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. 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.

(2.) On the other hand stand of the respondents is that it is incumbent upon the petitioner to disclose the information regarding pendency of criminal case against him so as to enable the authorities to examine the antecedents and character of the applicant. Admittedly, petitioner has not disclosed these facts as such has obtained the appointment order by concealing the same. Consequence of such concealment would result in the cancellation of his appointment as provided by the instructions and form required to be filled up by the applicant. It is in the light of this the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled.

(3.) Heard Mr. Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the material on record.