Rajasthan High Court
The State Of Rajasthan vs Pawan Kumar S/O Satyapal Singh on 6 January, 2021
Bench: Sabina, Chandra Kumar Songara
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 678/2020
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1000/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director General Of Police, Government Of Rajasthan,
Police Headquarters, Lalkothi, Jaipur
3. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarters, Lal Kothi, Jaipur
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Kota, Rural, Kota Rajasthan
----Appellants
Versus
Pawan Kumar S/o Satyapal Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Village And Post Nuhnd, Via Harmirwas, Tehsil Rajgarh, District
Churu (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Harshal Tholia, Advocate on
behalf of Dr. Vibhuti Bhushan
Sharma, Additional Advocate General
(through video conferencing)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, Advocate (through
video conferencing)
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA
Order
06/01/2021
Appellants-State has filed the appeal challenging the
order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge,
whereby, writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed.
Learned State counsel has submitted that the learned
Single Judge has erred in allowing the writ petition filed by the
(2 of 4) [SAW-678/2020]
respondent. In-fact, the respondent had been acquitted by giving
him benefit of doubt and the same could not be considered as
clean acquittal. Respondent had torn the OMR sheet while taking
the examination for appointment to the post of Constable in
pursuance to the advertisement dated 14.07.2013.
Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that
the respondent has been acquitted in the criminal case. In-fact,
respondent has cleared the written examination. Thus, it cannot
be said that his OMR sheet had been torn by the respondent.
Learned counsel has further submitted that in similar
circumstances writ petition filed by the Hanuman Gurjar was
allowed by the learned Single Judge and DBCSAW No.1525/2019
filed by the State against the order passed by the learned Single
Judge was dismissed. Special leave to appeal No. 9425/2020 filed
by the State was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
order dated 24.08.2020.
The order dated 24.08.2020 reads as under:-
"We have heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and in view of the given factual
scenario and specially taking into consideration
the judgment of this Court in the case of Avtar
Singh vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in
(2016) 8 SCC 471, we are not inclined to exercise
our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India. The special leave petition is
accordingly dismissed.
Pending application shall also stand disposed
of"
Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition
has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.- (2016) 8
(3 of 4) [SAW-678/2020]
Supreme Court Cases, 471, wherein, it was observed that if
acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral
turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical
ground and it was not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of
reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all
relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take
appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.
Learned Single Judge has also placed reliance on the circular
issued by the Director General of Police Rajasthan, Jaipur
(Annexure-13 attached to the writ petition) dated 28.03.2017,
wherein, it was stated that a candidate could be given
appointment if he had been acquitted by the Court even if the
acquittal was on account of benefit of doubt.
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.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the
case, learned Single Judge had thus rightly allowed the writ
(4 of 4) [SAW-678/2020]
petition filed by the respondent no ground for interference is made
out.
Dismissed.
(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J (SABINA),J
Ashish Kumar /11
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
