LexRAM KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011] 10 S.C.R. 506 RAM KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7106 of 2011) AUGUST 19, 2011 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] Service Law: c Appointment/selection - To the post of police constable - Cancellation of the order of selection of the appellant - On the ground of his failure to disclose in the affidavit submitted to the recruiting authority, in the proforma of verification roll about his involvement in a criminal case - Challenged by the 0 appellant - Writ petition as also appeal dismissed by the High Court - On appeal held: Though a criminal case u/ss. 3241 3231504 /PC was registered aga:nst the appellant but in absence of any other witness against the appellant, he was acquitted of the charges in the case, four years prior to the E furnishing of the affidavit - On these facts, it was not possible for the appointing authority to take a view that the appellant was not suitable for appointment to the post of a police constable - Appointing Authority instead of considering whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of constable, mechanically held that his selection was F irregular and illegal because the appellant furnished an affidavit stating the facts incorrectly at the time of recruitment - Thus, the order of the High Court is set aside and the order of the Appointing Authority is quashed. G Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v Ram Ratan - Yadav (2003) 3 sec 437: 2003 (2) SCR 361- distinguished. Commissioner of Police and Ors. v Sandeep Kumar H 2011 (3) SCALE 606 - referred to. 506 RAM KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. Case Law Reference: 2011 (3) SCALE 606 Referred to 2003 (2) SCR 361 Distinguished 507 Para 4 Para 10 A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. B 7106 of 2011. From the Judgment & Order dated 31.08.2009 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 924 of 2009. V.K. Shukla, K.K. Mohan for the Appellant. Aarohi Bhalla, Ajay Singh, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao for the .Respondents. The Order of the Court was delivered by A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This is an appeal against the order dated 31.08.2009 c D of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Special E Appeal No.924 of 2009 dismissing the appeal of the appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.40674 of 2007. 3. The facts very briefly are that pursuant to ah advertisement issued by the State Government of U.P. on F 19.11.2006, the appellant applied for the post of constable and he submitted an affidavit dated 12.06.2006 to the recruiting authority in the proforma of verification roll. In the affidavit dated 12.06.2006, he made various statements required for the purpose of recruitment and in para 4 of the affidavit he stated G that no criminal case was registered against him. He was selected and appointed as a male constable and deputed for. training. Thereafter, the Jaswant Nagar Police Station, District Etawah, submitted a report dated 15.01.2007 stating that Criminal Case No.275/2001 under Sections 324/323/504 IPC H 508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 10 S.C.R. A was registered against the appellant and thereafter the criminal case was disposed of by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah, on 18.07.2002 and the appellant was acquitted by the Court. Along with this report, a copy of the order dated 18.07.2002 of the Additional Chief Judicial B Magistrate was also enclosed. The report dated 15.01.2007 of the Jaswant Nagar Police Station, District Etawah, was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. · By order • dated 08.08.2007, the Senior Superintendent of Police, I Ghaziabad, cancelled the order of selection of the appellant on c the ground that he had submitted an affidavit stating wrong facts and concealing correct facts and his selection was irregular and illegal. 4. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.40674 of 2007 under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Allahabad D High Court but the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by his order dated 30.08.20'J7. The learned Single Judge held that since the appellant had furnished false information in his affidavit in the proforma verification roll, his case ·is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this E Court in Kendriya Vidya/aya Sangathan and Others v. Ram Ratan Yadav [(2003) 3 sec 437] and that he was r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.