Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. - (1.) The case of the petitioner is succinctly noted by this Court in its previous order dated 4.12.2019, which is as follows: - 'Earlier the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to send him to training inasmuch as post selection as Constable in U.P. Police, he was not being sent for training. It was pointed out at the hearing of the petition that this inaction by the respondents was on account of a charge-sheet filed in a criminal case. This Court taking into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Avatar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471, and followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal (Defective) No.734 of 2016, State of U.P. and Others v. Vijay Kumar and Others, required the petitioner's claim to be examined in accordance with law laid down in the said authorities. The petition was disposed of by permitting the petitioner to approach the Authority competent in the matter, who was arrayed as respondent No.3 to Writ A-No.19940 of 2018, raising his grievance within a period of two weeks along with a certified copy of the order. The petitioner was granted liberty to annex all materials in support of his claim. The Authority was ordered to examine the petitioner's claim in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Avatar Singh (supra). The Authority was further mandated to complete the aforesaid exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation aforesaid. Now, by the impugned orders, petitioner's claim for appointment has been rejected. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned orders have been passed without testing petitioner's claim in accordance with the parameters laid down in the case of Avatar Singh (supra). The impugned orders are, therefore, in the teeth of the earlier directions of this Court issued in Writ A-No.9940 of 2018, decided on 18.09.2018. A prima facie case is made out. A counter affidavit has already been filed on behalf of the State. Admit. Learned Standing Counsel waives service of formal notice of hearing and states that the respondents do not desire to file any further affidavit. List for final hearing on 18.12.2019. By that time, it will be open to the petitioner to file a rejoinder affidavit, if he so desires.'
(2.) The State respondents have filed counter affidavit in which they have tried to justify their action in not issuing character certificate to the petitioner in view of pendency of a criminal case against him. However, perusal of the impugned orders reveals that the claim of the petitioner has not been tested in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, 2016 (8) SCC 471, which is as follows: - '38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:- 38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. 38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. 38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. 38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted: 38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse. 38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. 38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. 38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. 38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case. 38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper. 38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime. 38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form. 38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for. 38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.'
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel is not in a position to dispute the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner made in this regard. He states that the authorities will re-examine the claim of the petitioner in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in Avtar Singh (supra).;