Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sunil Kumar Nayak vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ... on 7 January, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:980]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5237/2018
Sunil Kumar Nayak S/o Shri Narayan Lal Nayak, Resident Of
Mukam Post Mugana, Tehsil Dhariyavad, District Pratapgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Superintendent Of Police, District Pratapgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Jangid
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Soni
Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Bhati
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral) 07/01/2025
1. Petitioner herein is assailing an order dated 02.04.2018 (Annex.7) passed by the Director General of Police, Jaipur, vide which his candidature for the post of Constable Driver pursuant to an advertisement dated 10.02.2016, was rejected.
2. Succinctly speaking, relevant facts, as pleaded in the petition are as follows:
2.1. Vide an advertisement dated 10.02.2016 inviting applications were invited for appointments on various posts, including Constable Driver in Rajasthan Police. The petitioner, being eligible, also applied for the same for District Pratapgarh in general category. He successfully passed the written examination.
Thereafter, the petitioner was called for the physical efficiency test. The petitioner cleared the physical efficiency test as well. 2.2. As per final select list, petitioner was declared successful for appointment on the post of Constable Driver in the Pratapgarh (Downloaded on 24/01/2025 at 10:09:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:980] (2 of 6) [CW-5237/2018] District. However, despite being selected, he was not given appointment on account of criminal case registered against him, though he was acquitted by court vide order dated 30.09.2014 giving benefit of doubt due to lack of evidence, i.e. before issuance of the advertisement. In this regard, the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh sought instructions from the respondent No.2.
2.3. Notwithstanding, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected by an office order dated 02.04.2018 (Annex.7) without even considering their own circular dated 28.03.2017 (Annex.8) as per which, the persons who have been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt or lack of evidence, are eligible to be appointed. Hence, this petition.
3. The stand taken by the respondents in their reply inter alia is that the petitioner disclosed the particulars of the criminal case against him. Accordingly, as per para 9 of the advertisement and Circular No. 1300 dated 28.03.2017, the matter was forwarded to the headquarters for consideration by the department's committee. It was decided, vide order dated 02.04.2018, that the petitioner was not fit for appointment to the post of constable. 3.2 After trial, the learned Court below, by order dated 30.09.2014, though acquitted the petitioner, but not honorably. Rather, he was acquitted due to lack of evidence. Therefore, petition deserves to be dismissed as it is devoid of merit.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the case file. Rival arguments have been addressed on the lines of the respective pleadings of the parties. (Downloaded on 24/01/2025 at 10:09:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:980] (3 of 6) [CW-5237/2018]
5. In sum and substance, what boils down for adjudication lies in a very narrow compass i.e. (A) Whether the petitioner is disentitled to seek benefit of his performance despite his acquittal in the criminal proceedings owing to which his candidature was cancelled?
(B) Whether the petitioner indulged in any concealment overt or covert at the time of filling up of his application form for the post in question pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.02.2016?
6. Adverting to the second question first i.e. whether or not there is any concealment;
6.1 The answer to the said question is not far too seek in view of the specific undisputed averment contained in the petition that the advertisement was issued on 10.02.2016 and the FIR was registered against the petitioner on 01.06.2012 for the alleged offences under Sections 435, 323 and 34 of IPC. After trial, the petitioner was acquitted by the trial court vide order dated 30.09.2014. Clearly the chronology is self-revealing and reflects that petitioner did not indulge in any concealment as on the date of his application. Furthermore, during document verification, the petitioner explicitly disclosed the details of the FIR in good faith. Thus, there is no evidence of willful misrepresentation or deceit. The answer to the second question is accordingly in negative.
7. Moving on now to the first question i.e. whether the petitioner is disentitled to seek benefit of his performance despite the fact that he has been acquitted in the criminal proceedings owing to which his candidature was cancelled; (Downloaded on 24/01/2025 at 10:09:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:980] (4 of 6) [CW-5237/2018] 7.1 The said question also has to be necessarily answered in
negative, in view of the fact that an acquittal is an acquittal, on whatever ground. That aside even the equity is loaded in favour of the petitioner.
8. Be that as it may, the petitioner has been acquitted of all charges by a competent court of law. Trite it may sound, but on the principle of presumption of innocence, an acquittal restores the petitioner's status as a law-abiding citizen. The respondents' stand that the acquittal was not "honorable" is merely speculative. The acquittal remains valid unless set aside in appeal. No such appeal was filed by the State. Denying the petitioner an appointment solely due to an FIR/trial, in which he has been acquitted, amounts to punishing him.
9. In this context reference may be had to another judgment dated 13.05.2024 rendered by me in somewhat similar circumstances in case titled Rajendra Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan1, relevant thereof are paras Nos.12 to 20 which are not being reproduced for sake of brevity. Same view was taken by me in Shankar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and other2.
10. Reliance by the respondents on Rule 13(2)(ii) of the Rules of 1989, as amended, is completely misplaced. This rule does not allow for arbitrary rejection without considering the specific circumstances of each case. The charges under Sections 323 (simple hurt), 435 (Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage to amount of one hundred (in case of agricultural produce) and Section 34 (Acts done by several 1 Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur - S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15957/2021 2 Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur - S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.756/2022, decided on 18.11.2024 (Downloaded on 24/01/2025 at 10:09:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:980] (5 of 6) [CW-5237/2018] persons in furtherance of common intention) are not heinous or grave offenses. They do not indicate moral turpitude or a serious threat to law and order. In any case petitioner stands acquitted of all charges. An acquitted individual cannot be stigmatized for having been part of a criminal trial in past. Moreover, denying an employment opportunity to an accused who is acquitted is against the principle of reintegration of such individuals into society. Being so I see no reason on what grounds the respondents are pleading that the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit of the acquittal.
11. As an upshot, the petition merits being allowed. The order dated 02.04.2018 (Annex.7) is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner in accordance with his merit pursuant to which he was also allotted district for joining on the post of Constable Driver, however, at the time of joining, he was not allowed to do so only on the ground that though he was acquitted but since acquittal was on the ground of benefit of doubt, therefore, he was non-suited.
12. Though, counsel for the petitioner earnestly argues that the post on which petitioner was to join is lying vacant as on today but on Court query, counsel for the respondent is unable to assist as to whether the post is lying vacant or not. He would submit that after the advertisement in question, which was issued in the year 2016, subsequent selection has also been carried out by various advertisements and in all likelihood, the said post was factored in the subsequent advertisement and has been consumed by way of fresh selection.
13. Being so, a direction is issued to the respondents that subject to ascertaining a vacancy qua one post in question in the (Downloaded on 24/01/2025 at 10:09:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:980] (6 of 6) [CW-5237/2018] category petitioner has competed, he shall be issued appointment letter within a period of 30 days upon his approaching them with the web-print of the instant order.
14. In case no vacant post is available, the candidature of the petitioner shall be considered on the next available post and in case it is found that when the next post becomes available the petitioner has become over-age, then he shall be given relaxation qua his age since for no fault of him, he has already remained out of service since the year 2018, while his counter-parts were given appointment.
15. In the parting, I may also make it clear that for the period petitioner remained out of service, he shall not be entitled to get any financial benefits and his seniority shall be reckoned with effect from the date of his appointment.
16. Needless to say that passing of the directions by this Court shall not be construed that if the petitioner is not found eligible otherwise either in terms of eligibility and/or merits, even then he is to be given appointment.
17. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J 34-skm/-
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No (Downloaded on 24/01/2025 at 10:09:48 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)