Rajesh Son Of Shri Mohan Lal vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 2800 Raj/2

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2800 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 12 July, 2021

Rajasthan High Court

Rajesh Son Of Shri Mohan Lal vs Union Of India on 12 July, 2021

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7157/2021

Rajesh Son Of Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of
Bad Viran Police Thana, Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.) At
Present Resident Of Shekhawati Hostel, Anand Nagar, Sikar
(Raj.)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.      Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home
        Affairs, Government Of India, North Block, Central
        Secretariat, New Delhi.
2.      Sasshastra Seema Bal, Through Its Director General,
        Government Of India, Force Head Quarters, East Block-V,
        R.k. Puram New, Delhi.
3.      Assistant Director, Recruitment, Sashastra Seema Bal
        (Ssb), Waqt Mukhayalaya, New Delhi.
4.      Commandant, 45Th Vahini, Ssb, Birpur, Po Birpur, District
        Supaul, State Bihar- 854340.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. K.K. Giri.

For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

12/07/2021

This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your lordship may graciously be pleased to admit and allow this Writ petition and-

i.) By an appropriate, writ, order or direction in the nature therein thereby the respondents may kindly be directed to given appointment to petitioner on the post of constable driver with all consequential service benefit inpursuance to advertisement year 2016 issued by S.S.B. in the larger interest of justice.

ii.) Issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court

(2 of 4) [CW-7157/2021]

deems fit and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. iii.) Cost of writ petition also may kindly be awarded in favour of petitioner."

In pursuance to the advertisement dated 30.07.2016 the

petitioner applied for the post of Constable (Driver) and the

petitioner appeared in the said examination and his name was in

the final select list prepared by the respondent dated 19.03.2018.

The respondents communicated the memorandum dated

20.12.2019 whereby the appointment of the petitioner was

cancelled on the ground that a criminal case against the petitioner

was registered in which after trial, the petitioner was acquitted

after giving him benefit of doubt. The appointing authority

considered the case of the petitioner and took a conscious decision

not to give him appointment as the acquittal of the petitioner in

the criminal case was on the basis of benefit of doubt.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has been acquitted by the learned trial Court in the

criminal case pending against him, therefore, the petitioner is

having a right to be appointed on the post of Constable (Driver)

and the respondents be directed to give appointment to the

petitioner on the post of Constable (Driver). In support of his

submission, counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex

Court passed in the matter of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and

Others reported in (2016)8 SCC 471 para 38.4 and 38.4.1 wherein

Apex Court has held as under:-

"38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following

(3 of 4) [CW-7157/2021]

recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted:

38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse."

Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union Territory,

Chandigarh Vs. Pradeep Kumar and Anothers reported in (2018)1

SCC 797 held as under:-

"13.It is thus well settled that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle him for appointment to the post. Still it is open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether he is suitable for appointment to the post. From the observations of this Court in Mehar Singh and Parvez Khan cases, it is clear that a candidate to be recruited to the police service must be of impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was honourably acquitted/completely exonerated.

The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is shown to be mala fide. The Screening Committee also must be alive to the importance of the trust repose in it and must examine the candidate with utmost character.

17. In a catena of judgments, the importance of integrity and high standard of conduct in police force has been emphasized. As held in Mehar Singh case, the decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In the case in hand, there is nothing to suggest that the decision of the Screening Committee is mala fide. The decision of the Screening Committee that the Respondents are not suitable for being appointed to the post of Constable does

(4 of 4) [CW-7157/2021]

not call for interference. The Tribunal and the High Court, in our view, erred in setting aside the decision of the Screening Committee and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside."

This writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner deserves to

be dismissed for the reasons; admittedly, the petitioner was

acquitted by the learned trial Court after giving him benefit of

doubt but the acquittal of the petitioner was not honourable

acquittal; secondly, it is for the appointing authority to consider

the antecedents of the petitioner while giving him appointment in

the security forces; thirdly, I am not inclined to exercise the extra-

ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India in view of the judgment passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union Territory,

Chandigarh Vs. Pradeep Kumar and Anothers (supra).