Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satnam Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 April, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044330-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:044330-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(103) LPA-715-2023
Decided on : 03.04.2024
Satnam Singh ......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Punjab & others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr.H.S.Batth, Advocate for the appellant (s).
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
1. Consideration in the present appeal is to the judgment dated
22.03.2023 passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP-15886-2021 whereby
the relief sought for rejoining as Constable in compliance of the order dated
23.12.2016 passed by this Court in CWP-16191-1997, was declined.
2. The Learned Single Judge noticed that the claim of the writ
petitioner had been considered by the respondent-Police authorities and while
his character was being verified to test his eligibility, it was noticed that there
were 2 FIRs registered against him and one under Sections 307, 326, 323, 324,
148, 149 IPC at Police Station Gharinda had led to the conviction on
01.09.1999. The details are as under:
1) FIR No.36 of 1994 under Sections 307, 326, 323, 324, 148,
149 IPC, Police Station Gharinda whereby the appellant was
sentenced to undergo three years imprisonment, which was
reduced to one year on account of compromise;
2) FIR No.124 dated 14.08.2017 under Sections 336, 323, 148,
149 IPC and under Sections 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, Police
Station Gharinda, whereby the appellant had been kept in column
no.2.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044330-DB
3. In CRA-869-SB-1999, the sentence of the writ petitioner under
Section 307 IPC has been reduced to one already undergone on 15.07.2010 on
account of a compromise having been effected. It is in such circumstances,
the Learned Single Judge recorded the finding that the writ petitioner was a
convict in principle and he was never acquitted on merits and therefore, could
not be considered for appointment against the 159 vacant posts in which he
had sought the necessary relief.
4. We are of the considered opinion that the findings which have
been recorded by the Learned Single Judge do not suffer from any infirmity.
The Apex Court has time and again held that a person in uniform cannot have
any criminal antecedents or a background and the authorities were well
justified in not considering the case of a person who had been a convict.
Reliance can be placed upon the judgments of the Apex Court in
Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & another Vs. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7
SCC 685 and Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla Vs. The State of Jammu & Kashmir
& others, 2023 AIR (SC) 1308. In Mehar Singh (supra), the Apex Court has
held as under:
"28. The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great
responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the
society. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must be
worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police force
must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must have impeccable
character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not
fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged in the criminal
case, that acquittal or discharge order will have to be examined to see
whether he has been completely exonerated in the case because even a
possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the
discipline of the police force. The Standing Order, therefore, has
entrusted the task of taking decisions in these matters to the Screening
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044330-DB
Committee. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as
final unless it is mala fide. In recent times, the image of the police
force is tarnished. Instances of police personnel behaving in a wayward
manner by misusing power are in public domain and are a matter of
concern. The reputation of the police force has taken a beating. In such
a situation, we would not like to dilute the importance and efficacy of a
mechanism like the Screening Committee created by the Delhi Police
to ensure that persons who are likely to erode its credibility do not
enter the police force. At the same time, the Screening Committee
must be alive to the importance of trust reposed in it and must treat all
candidates with even hand."
5. As noticed, the conviction is under Section 307 IPC by the
Addl.Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Even otherwise, if the writ petitioner had been
in service at an earlier point of time also, he would have necessarily faced the
dismissal under Article 311 of the Constitution of India on account of his sheer
conviction without any departmental proceedings also being resorted to. In
such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the prayer for
consideration which had been shelved at that point of time and could not be
processed on account of the criminal proceedings also cannot be re-agitated by
virtue of a prayer for mandamus only on account of the fact that the criminal
proceedings had culminated in a compromise on 15.07.2010 regarding a
selection process pertaining to the year 1993.
6. Resultantly, in view of the above discussion, finding no merit in
the present appeal, same is dismissed in limine.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
03.04.2024 (LAPITA BANERJI)
Sailesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
3 of 3
