Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Rakesh Raliya on 5 April, 2021
Bench: Indrajit Mahanty, Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 463/2020
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Inspector General Of Police, Udaipur Range, District
Udaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Pratapgarh.
4. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Rakesh Raliya S/o Shri Kishana Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Vpo Mundi, Post Geloli, Tehsial Jayal, District Nagaur (Raj.).
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Vyas, AAG
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Dewasi.
Mr. Prem Sukh Choudhary through
VC.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE INDRAJIT MAHANTY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
05/04/2021
The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment
and order 27.11.2019 passed by learned Single Judge allowing the
writ petition of the petitioner-respondent, directing the appellants
to issue appointment order to the petitioner-respondent and
permitting him to join duties within a period of eight weeks.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned
Single Judge has wrongly relied upon the judgment of this court in
the case of Nadeem Khan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 4321/2019 decided on 01.05.2019 on the
(2 of 4) [SAW-463/2020]
ground that the respondent has failed to disclose correct factual
aspects of the criminal cases pending/ decided against him in the
verification form. He submits that in para 8 of the verification
form, the respondent admitted the fact about his conviction but in
para 9, the respondent has stated "D;k dtZnkj gS vkSj vk;k mlds fo+:}
dksbZ QkStnkjh eqdnek ;k nhokuh nkok py jgk gS ? U;k;ky; }kjk nks+"keqDr fd;k"
The statement of the respondent amounts to suppression of
material fact of conviction suffered by him in criminal case
No.64/2013. Learned counsel vehemently submits that a person
who is having three criminal cases decided against him should not
be allowed to join the disciplined force.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner
submits that the respondent has disclosed the entire information
before the competent authority by placing relevant documents. He
also submits that the respondent-petitioner comes from a rural
background and, therefore, while giving answer in para No.9 of
the verification roll, he could not understand the meaning and he
stated that "D;k dtZnkj gS vkSj vk;k mlds fo+:} dksbZ QkStnkjh eqdnek ;k
nhokuh nkok py jgk gS ? U;k;ky; }kjk nks+"keqDr fd;k" as he was acquitted
on a payment of fine of Rs.500/- by giving him benefit of
Probation of Offenders Act. The counsel also submits that vide
Annexure 7, the points taken into consideration by the
respondent-authority have also taken note of the pendency and
decision of the criminal cases registered against the respondent-
petitioner in the following manner:-
"1. eq-ua- [email protected] /kkjk 379 vkbZihlh tks eksVjlkbZfdy pksjh dk gS] ftlesa
fd'kksj U;k;ky; cksM ukxkSj }kjk fnukad 16-08-2014 dks tqekZuk 500 :i;s
ls nks"kfl) djrs gq, fd'kksj U;k; vf/k- dh /kkjk 19 dk ykHk fn;k
(3 of 4) [SAW-463/2020]
tkdj ;g nks"k fl)h mlds dsfj;j ij fdlh izdkj dk foifjr izHkko ugha
MkysxhA
2- eq-ua- [email protected] /kkjk 379 vkbZihlh tks eksVjlkbZfdy pksjh dk gS] ftlesa
fd'kksj U;k; cksMZ ukxkSj }kjk fnukad 16-08-2014 }kjk dks 4 ihvks ,DV ds
rgr~ 1 o"kZ ds fy;s 10000 :i;s ds tekur eqpyds ij ikcUn djrs gq,
fd'kksj U;k; vf/k- dh /kkjk 19 dk ykHk fn;k tkdj ;g nks"k fl)h dsfj;j
ij fdlh izdkj dk foifjr izHkko ugha MkysxhA
3- eq-ua- [email protected] /kkjk 379 vkbZihlh tks eksVjlkbZfdy pksjh dk gS] ftlesa
ekuuh; fd'kksj U;k; cksMZ ds vkns'k fnukad 19-10-13 }kjk tfj;s jkthukek
nks"keqDr fd;k x;kA^*
Therefore, it is submitted that the respondent-petitioner has
disclosed the entire factual details including the orders passed in
criminal cases before the authorities without any suppression.
We have considered the submissions made at the Bar.
It is noted that while giving the details in the verification roll,
the respondent-petitioner has correctly submitted all relevant
information. In reply to Question No. 8, "vk;k izkFkhZ dHkh fdlh
QkStnkjh ekeys esa eqfYte cuk gS ;k dHkh tsy dh ltk ikbZ gS\- , the
respondent stated "gk¡" but while giving answer to Question No.9
"D;k dtZnkj gS vkSj vk;k mlds fo+:} dksbZ QkStnkjh eqdnek ;k nhokuh nkok
py jgk gS ?, the respondent stated "U;k;ky; }kjk nks+"keqDr fd;k". The
answer to question No.8 in the form shows that he had no
intention to suppress any information about the decision in his
case but while giving answer to question No.9, he has taken into
consideration that since he was given benefit of the Probation of
Offenders Act by penalizing him with a fine of Rs.500/-, it was
presumed by the respondent to be a decision of acquittal. We are
of the view that the respondent comes from rural background of
(4 of 4) [SAW-463/2020]
the State of Rajasthan presumed that he has been acquitted by
the court by giving him benefit under the Probation of Offenders
Act while maintaining the reply to question No.8 in affirmative,
therefore, it cannot be assumed that the respondent had any
intention to suppress any fact about the criminal cases. It is also
admitted that entire details of the case along with the orders were
placed before the competent authority.
In the considered opinion of this Court there is no
suppression made by the respondent in the application form
submitted before the competent authority. The judgment relied
upon by the learned Single Judge is fully applicable in the present
case. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed being bereft of merit
and judgment dated 27.11.2019 passed by learned Single Judge is
upheld.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ
7-AnilSingh/Vivek/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
