w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Vijay Singh Yadav v/s Ajay Shanker Rai

Company & Directors' Information:- RAI CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65993GJ2012PTC070063

Company & Directors' Information:- AJAY (INDIA) LTD [Active] CIN = U18102RJ1996PLC011678

Company & Directors' Information:- G B YADAV & COMPANY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U63090WB1994PTC064888

Company & Directors' Information:- VIJAY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25199DL1998PTC096860

Company & Directors' Information:- SHANKER INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310UP2008PLC035838

Company & Directors' Information:- AJAY AND CO. PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U01122DL1997PTC089125

Company & Directors' Information:- VIJAY J AND K PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52100GJ1974PTC002504

Company & Directors' Information:- D P RAI AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL1996PTC080309

Company & Directors' Information:- D VIJAY AND COMPANY LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1933PTC002056

    Contempt Application (Civil) No. 2974 of 2020

    Decided On, 04 September 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


    For the Petitioner: Gulab Chandra, Rupesh Kumar Singh, Advocates. For the Respondents: ----------

Judgment Text

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for wilful disobedience of the order dated 6.3.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.3755 of 2020 (Vijay Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors.), which for ready reference is quoted as under:

"Heard Sri Gulab Chandra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents-State.

It is contended that petitioner appeared for examination conducted for the post of constable (male) in P.A.C. for the year 2018. He, however, qualified the written examination as well as physical examination. During document verification, it was found that a criminal case No. 4448 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 232 of 2015, under Sections 147/323/504/506/325 I.P.C., P.S. Maheshganj, District Pratapgarh was pending against the petitioner, due to which, he was not given appointment. Reliance has been placed upon decision of Apex Court in case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others, 2016 (8) SCC 471.

The Apex Court in case of Avtar Singh (supra) has laid down the guidelines for considering the issue of suppression of material facts while seeking appointment and the same are extracted hereasunder:

"38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize 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 recourse 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."

As no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending, the matter is being decided at this stage. In case, petitioner approaches respondent no. 4 with a comprehensive representation along with certified copy of this order within 15 days from today, respondent no. 4 shall consider the case of petitioner in the light of judgment rendered by Apex Court in case of Avtar Singh (supra) within a period of next two months.

With the aforesaid observation, writ petition stands disposed of."

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a certified copy of the aforesaid order was submitted for compliance before the opposite parties but the opposite parties have wilfully not complied with the order and, thus, have committed civil contempt liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Prima facie a case of contempt has been made out. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity is afforded to the opposite parties to comply with the aforesaid order of the Court within eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order.

The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite parties and another self-addressed stamped envelope to the office within two weeks from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the self-addressed stamped envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite parties within one week, thereafter and keep a record thereof. The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ Court and intimate the applicant of the order through the self-addressed envelop within a week, thereafter.


Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

th the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicant to move a fresh application, if the order is not complied with by the opposite parties within the stipulated time as aforementioned. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.