Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suresh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 23 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126888
CWP-24683-2019 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.219 CWP-24683-2019
Date of Decision: 23.09.2024
Suresh Kumar .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Present: Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathi, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
***
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)
The issue being decided is whether a selected candidate, who
has been convicted for offences not involving moral turpitude and released
on probation, can be declined appointment.
2. The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of
mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner join service as
Junior Basic Teacher (JBT)/Primary Teacher (PRT) in the Department of
Elementary Education on the basis of letter of appointment, dated
30.05.2019, Annexure P-6.
3. Facts of the case in brief are, applications were invited for the
post of PRTs (Group-C) in the respondent-Department vide advertisement
2/2012, published on 08.11.2012, Annexure P-1. The petitioner applied in
response thereto under BCA category. He was duly selected at merit
no.7321-A, and recommended for appointment also. A letter of appointment,
dated 30.05.2019, was accordingly issued to him for the post of JBT in the
pay scale of `9300-34800+4200 grade pay, and was allotted a Government
school in village Phool.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126888
3.1. After issuance of appointment letter, as per requirement, the
petitioner filed an affidavit, Annexure P-7, disclosing the pending criminal
case against him, and that he stood convicted for offences under Sections
323 and 506(ii) of IPC vide judgment in appeal passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, dated 30.11.2012, titled Shera Ram and others v.
State of Haryana. Also, that his Criminal Revision Petition challenging the
judgment was pending before this Court. Pursuant to the medical
examination conducted on 31.05.2019, he was found fit to join service; the
medical examination report is appended to the petition as Annexure P-8.
3.2. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his joining report, dated
03.06.2019, Annexure P-9, to the fourth respondent/Block Education
Officer, Ratia, but he was not allowed to join. In these circumstances, the
petitioner was forced to file the instant petition.
3.3. During pendency of this petition, the revision petition against
his conviction, i.e., CRR No.3880 of 2012, was finally decided, vide
judgment dated 19.04.2023, holding that the petitioner-Suresh Kumar alias
Bittu, who had undergone more than four months of sentence out of total
two years, deserved concession under provisions of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958. Accordingly, upholding the conviction, he was ordered
to be released on probation by reducing the sentence awarded to him to the
extent actually undergone.
4. In this factual background, learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that the offences petitioner has been convicted for do not involve
moral turpitude; besides, vide final judgment dated 19.04.2023, passed in the
Revision Petition, he has been released on probation. Therefore, there is no
restrain on appointing him. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon
Government Instructions, dated 02.02.1973, Annexure P-11, regarding
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126888
"Rehabilitation of ex-convicts released from Jails-question of making them
eligible for appointment under Government", which is to the effect that
persons released on probation should not suffer from any disability for
obtaining government jobs.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel has objected to the petitioner's
prayer by referring to the written statement, which is as under:
Keeping in view of the above facts that the petitioner i.e. Suresh
Kumar stands convicted for involving in an offence of causing
simple hurt and extending threat of criminal intimidation, it
becomes crystal clear that the petitioner is not a fit person to be
appointed in Govt. Service. Moreover it also depicts there (that)
the petitioner is a short tempered person who indulged in the
incidence of violence as if there has been any history of cross
version of causing injury to him by the opposite party, in that
eventually (eventuality), the same would have definitely been
mentioned in the present CWP No.24683/2019 but there is no
such case. So the department is of the considered opinion that
such type of person may not be appointed in the Government
job specially for teaching the children. Hence, he cannot be
appointed.
Therefore, once the Department found the petitioner was not fit for
government service on account of his conviction, he cannot be considered
suitable for appointment, and there is nothing wrong in not permitting him to
join service.
6. Heard.
7. The undisputed facts on record are, the petitioner was duly
selected as PRT in response to the advertisement in question, and was placed
at merit position 7321-A. Despite the letter of appointment, dated
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126888
30.05.2019, having been issued, he was not allowed to join service only on
account of a pending criminal case wherein he stood convicted for offences
under Sections 323 and 506(ii) of IPC. It is also apparent on record that this
Court, vide judgment dated 19.04.2023, has ordered the petitioner's release
on probation by reducing his sentence while maintaining the conviction. The
conviction is for offences of simple hurt and criminal intimidation, which do
not constitute moral turpitude, as it does not show wickedness of character,
dishonesty, immoral or depraved conduct, etc. by him. Even as per
Government Instructions, dated 02.02.1973, offences under Sections 323
and 506(ii) of IPC do not constitute moral turpitude.
8. Further, as per these Instructions the Government has taken the
following decision:
2. The State Government have considered this matter
accordingly and have taken the following decision-
(i) Persons who are detained under the Borstal Act or after
conviction, are released under the Probation of Offenders Act
instead of being confined to Jail, should not suffer any disability
in respect of obtaining Government service.
(ii) With regard to the employment of ex-convicts on release
from jail, a uniform policy will not be possible and each case
should be considered on its own merits. The appointing
authority should, in such cases make detailed enquiries and
satisfy himself fully that the ex-convicts has reformed himself
after release from Jail, and nothing adverse about his conduct
has come to notice after his conviction, and he is thus suitable
for Government service. The enquiries should invariably be
made through the Police Department and, if the Police
Department consider it necessary to obtain a report from any
other department, they should proceed to do so.
(iii) Ex-convicts who were convicted of offences involving
moral turpitude should not however be taken in Government
Service.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126888
9. As apparent from para 2.(i) of the Instructions, it has been
decided by the Government that the persons released on probation after
conviction should not suffer any disability in obtaining jobs, provided the
conviction is not for offences involving moral turpitude. Besides, under para
2.(ii), before giving employment the appointing authority is required to
satisfy itself of ex-convict's suitability for Government service by making
detailed enquiries through Police Department ascertaining that the
ex-convict has reformed himself/herself after release from jail, and nothing
adverse has come to notice about his/her conduct post-conviction. Even if
the petitioner is to be treated as ex-convict, as he was confined to jail, and
his case is to be considered under para 2.(ii) of the Instructions, there is
nothing on record to indicate even prima facie that he has not reformed
himself after release from jail or that there is anything adverse about his
conduct. Resultantly, he cannot be declared unsuitable for service, as has
been done by the respondents while denying appointment to him. Merely
because he has been convicted for offences under Sections 323 and 506(ii)
of IPC, it cannot be said he is not a fit person to be appointed in service,
especially because the offences do not involve moral turpitude, as already
discussed. Besides, the Instructions, dated 02.02.1973, do not declare a
person unsuitable for government service after conviction for an offence not
involving moral turpitude.
10. Further, the respondents' assertion that the petitioner's
conviction depicted he was short tempered and indulged in incidence of
violence without provocation by the opposite party, and was therefore not fit
to be appointed as teacher, is imaginary and deserves rejection. There is no
basis to conclude that the petitioner was short tempered, as there is no such
finding against him in the judgment of conviction; even if it had been so,
being short tempered is no ground to declare a person unfit for government
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126888
service. No Rule, Regulation or Instruction to that effect has been referred to
by the respondents. Accordingly, there is no legal basis to prevent him from
joining service.
11. For the reasons aforementioned, the petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to permit the petitioner join service as PRT/JBT in
terms of the letter of appointment, dated 30.05.2019, and give all service
benefits notionally from the date other selected candidates pursuant to the
selection in question joined, and actually from the date of joining service.
These directions are to be carried out within two weeks of receiving a
certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA)
JUDGE
23.09.2024
Maninder
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
