Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jag Mohan vs State Of Haryana And Another on 6 September, 2022
229
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-1699-2019 (O&M)
Date of decision: September 06, 2022
Jag Mohan
.....Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present: Mr. Vijay Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Additional AG Haryana.
*****
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
Petition herein, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of
Mandamus directing respondent No.2 to issue joining letter to the petitioner for the
post of Peon on compassionate ground being considered as dependent of his father
Martyr Rishal Singh of Armed Forces Personnel by respondent No.1
2. Pleaded case of the petitioner is that vide letter dated 27.02.2018
(Annexure P-1), State Government decided to provide Government job to the
petitioner being dependent of Martyr-Rishal Singh of Armed Forces Personnel. In
compliance thereto, on 30.03.2018, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hisar was
asked to do character verification of the petitioner. As per character verification
report dated 30.04.2018, name and address of the petitioner was found correct, but
one case was shown to be registered at Police Station, Sadar Hansi, i.e. Case
No.413 dated 12.10.2013, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 452, 506, 427 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860; trial of which was pending then. But inadvertently in
the verification column 12 which relates to case registered or pending before any
Court of law, "No" was stated by the petitioner. Petitioner made representation to
the respondents to issue him the appointment letter on compassionate ground,
1 of 3
appending instructions dated 17/26.03.1975 in which decision has been taken by
the State that the offence which do not involve moral turpitude, should not suffer
any disability in respect of obtaining Government service. He relies on the decision
dated 21.07.2016 rendered by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.20525-2011titled
Avtar Singh versus Union of India and others.
3. I have heard rival contentions of the parties and perused the record. In
Avtar Singh's case (supra), it was held inter alia, as under:-
"34. No doubt about it that verification of character and antecedents
is one of the important criteria to assess suitability and it is open to
employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action
should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all
relevant aspects.
35. Suppression of "material" information presupposes that what is
suppressed that "matters" not every technical or trivial matter. The
employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any,
in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for
terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has
suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for
appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt
with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner
with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases.
36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of
post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services,
not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive,
nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be
considered by authorities concerned considering post/nature of
duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of
various aspects.
37. The "McCarthyism" is antithesis to constitutional goal, chance of
reformation has to be afforded to young offenders in suitable cases,
interplay of reformative theory cannot be ruled out in toto nor can be
generally applied but is one of the factors to be taken into
consideration while exercising the power for cancelling candidature
or discharging an employee from service."
5. Relying upon the said judgment, it was held by the Apex Court in
Pawan Kumar versus Union of India and another, CA No.3574/2022, decided
on 02.05.2022 as under:-
"18. The criminal case indeed was of trivial nature and the nature of
post and nature of duties to be discharged by the recruit has never
been looked into by the competent authority while examining the
overall suitability of the incumbent keeping in view Rule 52 of the
Rules 1987 to become a member of the force. Taking into
2 of 3
consideration the exposition expressed by this Court in Avtar Singh
(supra), in our considered view the order of discharge passed by the
competent authority dated 24th April, 2015 is not sustainable and in
sequel thereto the judgment passed by the Division Bench of High
Court of Delhi does not hold good and deserves to be set aside.
19. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment
of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 17th November, 2015
and the order of discharge dated 24th April, 2015 and dated 23rd
December, 2021 are hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondents
are directed to reinstate the appellant in service on the post of
Constable on which he was selected pursuant to his participation in
reference to employment notice no.1/2011 dated 27th February, 2011.
We make it clear that the appellant will not be entitled for the arrears
of salary for the period during which he has not served the force and
at the same time he will be entitled for all notional benefits, including
pay, seniority and other consequential benefits, etc. Necessary orders
shall be passed within a period of one month from today. No costs."
6. In view of the aforesaid, writ petition is allowed in terms of Avtar
Singh and Pawan Kumar's case (supra). Respondents are directed to re-consider
the case of the petitioner for appointment and pass a speaking order within 4
months. If such order is unfavourable, the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge
the same.
(ARUN MONGA)
JUDGE
September 06, 2022
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
