Rajasthan High Court
Bhawani Singh S/O Lal Chand Saini vs The State Of Rajasthan on 15 January, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
(1 of 4) [CW-6447/2019]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6447/2019
Bhawani Singh S/o Lal Chand Saini, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Vpo Sarai, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary
Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Police
Head Quarters, Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Jhunjhunu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pushpendra Singh Naruka
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
15/01/2021
1. The issue involved in the present petition stands
covered by the judgment passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.1000/2019 : Pawan Kumar versus State of
Rajasthan & Ors. on 03.03.2020 wherein this Court held as
under:-
"Keeping in view as above, this writ
petition is allowed. The petitioner is held
entitled to be offered appointment in terms of
his selection and merit on the post of
Constable (General Duty) at District Kota
Rural. He would be entitled to all
consequential benefits including seniority as
per his merit. The appointment has been
denied to him wrongfully and, therefore, he
(2 of 4) [CW-6447/2019]
would be also entitled to be appointed from
the date, persons junior to him was appointed
as Constable. Of course he will have to
undergo the probation period as required
under the Rajasthan Service Rules however,
after probation his pay fixation would be done
from the date, his juniors was so appointed
and arrears of salary would however, be paid
only from the date he has given actual
appointment."
2. The judgment has been upheld by the Division Bench in D.B.
Special Appeal No.678/2020 : The State of Rajasthan &
Ors. versus Pawan Kumar decided on 6.1.2021 wherein the
Division Bench held as under:-
"In the present case, respondent had applied
for the post of Constable in pursuance to the
advertisement dated 14.07.2013. A criminal
case was registered against the respondent
under Section 143, 353, 427, 506 and 509 of
Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,
1984 alongwith others. Vide order dated
25.07.2018 (Annexure-10 attached to the writ
petition) respondent was acquitted of the
charges framed against him on the ground
that the prosecution had failed to prove its
case against the accused beyond the shadow
of reasonable doubt. It has been further
observed that some occurrence took place at
the time of examination but the prosecution
had failed to establish the involvement of the
accused (including the respondent) in the
alleged crime."
(3 of 4) [CW-6447/2019]
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that for the
purpose of appointment, acquittal can be examined. The judgment
passed by a competent Court can be examined by the appointing
authority to see whether the acquittal of the concerned person
was honorable acquittal or by giving benefit of doubt or by
compromise. Counsel submits that it is only when there is an
honorable acquittal, the petitioner can be given appointment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted
that the D.G. himself has issued a circular stating that acquittal of
any nature would suffice for granting benefit and no distinction
can be drawn on the nature of acquittal for the purpose of
consideration of appointment vide circular dated 28.3.2017.
5. I have considered the submissions.
6. So far as Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, acquittal
can be only of three kinds. Firstly, it is by way of discharging,
secondly, after trial and thirdly by compounding of a case. In all
three cases, acquittal is of the same import. It need not be
mentioned that any person who has made to face criminal
proceedings suffers huge mental harassment as well as
harassment in social life after having been acquitted. Such a
person cannot be deprived of joining the society merely on the
ground that acquittal was by way of benefit of doubt or by
compromise. In a society, intention of the law-makers has always
been to bring individuals into folding of the society instead of
outcasting them.
(4 of 4) [CW-6447/2019]
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The petitioner who
has been duly acquitted from the charges shall be considered as
per his selection process and merit for the post of Constable with
all consequential benefits. The benefits shall be notional and
actual from the date of passing of this order.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
SAURABH YADAV 670/104
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
