VEER PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein assails the validity of an order dated 17.08.2007. In terms of the said order the Appointing Authority of the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 herein, has cancelled the selection of the petitioner as Constable of the Provincial Armed Constabulary (P.A.C.). The sole ground for the said order being passed was the involvement of the petitioner in Case Crime No. 136 of 2004 under Sections 452, 323,504, 506 I.P.C. which resulted in the filing of a charge sheet against the petitioner on 10th August, 2004 and the non-disclosure of the said facts while making his application for consideration of the respondents.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details the salient facts necessary for deciding the present petition are as follows. The respondent No. 2 issued a notice for recruitment of Constables in the P.A.C. The petitioner submitted his application and subsequently succeeded in the selection process. Based upon his showing in the selection process, he was ultimately recruited on 28.8.2006. It appears that certain complaints were made against the petitioner with regard to the testimonials and declarations made by him upon which an internal inquiry was conducted and consequent to verification it was found that the declarations made by the petitioner with respect to his not being involved in any criminal case was incorrect. Accordingly, by the impugned order dated 17.08.2007, the respondent No. 3 anulled the selections of the petitioner.

(3.) A reading of the impugned order establishes that the papers submitted by the petitioner at the time of his selection were sent for scrutiny and ultimately P.S. Chhibramau, District Kannauj submitted a report dated 17.7.2007 informing the respondent No. 3 that a criminal case stood registered against the petitioner in which a charge-sheet has been submitted before the Court concerned on 10th August, 2004. The impugned order takes note of the declarations made by the petitioner in Clauses 3,7,9 and 15 of the application form and ultimately records that the petitioner had obtained the appointment by concealing material facts and by practicing misrepresentation before the respondents. The declarations made by the petitioner were to the effect that no criminal case has been ever registered against him nor is any criminal case against him pending trial before any Court. The petitioner further made a declaration that if in case any information tendered by him is found to be incorrect or if it is found that he has concealed facts, his selection would be liable to be cancelled without any notice to him.