YOGESH KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was selected as a constable and was sent for training. At the time of filling his form, a declaration was required to be given by the petitioner, which he did, stating therein that he was not involved in any criminal proceedings. The respondents made an enquiry and found that the petitioner was involved in a criminal proceeding under section 307, i. P. C. in Case Crime No. 27 of 1997. Consequently, the respondents issued an order dated 4. 11. 1999 terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition contending that the punishment of dismissal was harsh and did not commensurate with the misconduct. Further, the petitioner was absolved in that criminal proceedings and was acquitted by the Court. In support of his submission, the petitioner has relied upon a decision in Qamrul Hoda v. Chief Security Commissioner, N. E. Railway, Gorakhpur, 1997 2 UPLBEC 1201.

(2.) IN my opinion, the said judgment cannot be relied upon by the petitioner in view of the successive pronouncements given by the Supreme Court in various decisions. Further, the decision in Qamrul Hoda's case is no longer a good law as held in Ravindra Singh v. State of U. P. decided on 16. 5. 2005 in Writ Petition No. 39418 of 2005.

(3.) IN Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary and others v. Sushil Kumar, 1996 11 SCC 605, the Supreme Court held that the concealment of involvement in the criminal proceeding in the declaration form and subsequent absolvement in the criminal proceedings will not condone the act of misrepresentation. The court held that the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed in service is relevant and not the result of the criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court held-