- (1.) This petition is directed against an order dated 14.8.2019, whereby appointment already offered to the petitioner on the post of Prosecuting Officer in the employment of State has been cancelled. The order records that petitioner was implicated in Case Crime No.147 of 1998 under sections 147 , 352 , 188 , 504 , 506 IPC in which he was acquitted on 4.9.2003 by granting him benefit of doubt. In another case being Case Crime No.227 of 1999 under section 307 , 504 , 506 IPC registered against the petitioner the proceedings have already been stayed by this Court on 3.6.2013. As per the order impugned, the petitioner instead of mentioning the details of Case Crime No.227 of 1998 has mentioned details of case number u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C . According to the respondents, this act on part of the petitioner amounted to misrepresentation of facts on account of which his appointment is liable to be cancelled.
(2.) While entertaining the writ petition this Court proceeded to pass following order on 18.10.20 19:- "Following orders were passed in the matter on 19.9.2019:- "Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Prosecuting Officer after facing selection proceedings conducted by the U.P. Public Service Commission. It was followed with police verification conducted by the competent investigating agency. Petitioner in his application made for appointment had clearly disclosed that there was a case Crime No. 147 of 1998 lodged against him in which he has already been acquitted and that a subsequent criminal case was instituted against him in case Crime No. 227 of 1999 of which proceedings have already been stayed by this Court. Such facts were available on record before the authorities. His appointment, however, has been cancelled on the ground that though petitioner had disclosed about grant of stay by this Court in criminal proceedings of case Crime No. 227 of 1999 but the date of stay order as well as sections involved were not specified by the petitioner.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no misrepresentation on part of the petitioner and all facts including the two criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner were duly taken note of and once petitioner has been appointed and has completed his probation satisfactorily, the authorities would not be justified in cancelling petitioner's appointment at this stage on the ground of implication in criminal case.;