Allahabad High Court
Rajat Rathi vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 25 September, 2023
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:185317
Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16110 of 2023
Petitioner :- Rajat Rathi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam,Jay Vishwanath Pandey,Sr. Advocate,Vinod Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard.
2. Under challenge is that order dated 16.08.2023 passed by respondent no.4, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, whereby the candidature of the petitioner for selection/appointment on the post of Constable Civil Police and Constable PAC, Direct Recruitment -2018 has been rejected.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of selection which was held in the year 2016 the petitioner had disclosed the pendency of criminal cases against him.
4. It is contended that despite the petitioner having been selected the respondents have failed to appoint him rather have passed the order impugned dated 16.08.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, whereby considering the pendency of criminal cases against the petitioner vide case crime no.959/2016 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 452 IPC and Case Crime No.14/17 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, the petitioner has not been found fit for appointment.
5. The argument is that the trial court vide its judgment and order dated 31.07.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition, has already acquitted the petitioner of the criminal charges and consequently the order impugned reflects patent non-application of mind and prays that the matter may be remitted back to the competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner afresh.
6. On the other hand, Ms. Archana Tyagi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, states that as per the recent judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5984 of 2023 decided on 20.09.2023 in re: The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bhupendra Yadav the Apex Court has considered the acquittal of a person and has held that where the acquittal is on the basis of benefit of doubt the same can make the candidate unsuitable for appointment more particularly when the appointment is to a disciplined force more particularly on the post of a Constable. Thus, it is prays that even if the petitioner may have been acquitted of the charges yet the acquittal is on the basis of benefit of doubt consequently there is no error in the order impugned passed by the competent authority whereby the competent authority has rejected the candidature of the petitioner for being appointed on the post of Constable.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records what emerges is that despite the petitioner having qualified in the selection for the post of Constable he has not been found fit for appointment on the basis of criminal cases. Even through the said criminal cases have ended in acquittal of the petitioner vide judgment and order dated 31.07.2023 passed by the trial court yet a perusal of the said order would indicate more particularly in paragraph 75 of the judgment that the petitioner has been acquitted on the basis of the benefit of doubt.
8. Whether acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt could be a ground for a candidate to seek appointment in a disciplined force has been considered threadbare by the Apex Court in the case of Bhupendra Yadav (supra). The Apex Court after considering the relevant facts has held as under:-
"19. We are, therefore, of the opinion that mere acquittal of the respondent in the criminal case would not automatically entitle him to being declared fit for appointment to the subject post. The appellant?State Government has judiciously exercised its discretion after taking note of all the relevant factors relating to the antecedents of the respondent. In such a case, even one criminal case faced by the respondent in which he was ultimately acquitted, apparently on the basis of being extended benefit of doubt, can make him unsuitable for appointment to the post of a Constable. The said decision taken by the appellant?State Government is not tainted by any malafides or arbitrariness for the High Court to have interfered therewith. As a result, the judgement dated 17th November, 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge is upheld while quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment dated 24th January, 2018, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeal is allowed. Parties are left to bear their own costs."
9. Accordingly, when the order impugned dated 16.08.2023 is seen in the context of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bhupendra Yadav (supra) what emerges is that the petitioner has staked his appointment on the post of Constable and has challenged the order impugned dated 16.08.2023 whereby his candidature has been rejected on the ground of pendency of the criminal case. No doubt the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges by the trial court but the acquittal has not been on merits rather it has been rendered on the basis of benefit of doubt. The Apex Court in the case of Bhupendra Yadav (supra) has held that whereby the acquittal is on the basis of benefit of doubt the same can make the candidate unsuitable for appointment in a disciplined force i.e. the post of Constable.
10. Accordingly, keeping in view the fact of the acquittal of the petitioner has been made on the basis of benefit of doubt and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhupendra Yadav (supra) no case for interference with the order impugned is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.9.2023
A. Katiyar
