Rajasthan High Court
Shyam Sunder Bishnoi vs State Of Raj And Ors on 22 April, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11891/2017
Shyam Sunder Bishnoi S/o Shri Sant Ram, Resident Of Sector-2,
Near Jai Mata Tent Palace, M.p. Colony, Bikaner Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Home
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
Raj.
2. Superintendent Of Police, Kota Raj.
3. Superintendent Of Police/commandant, State Disaster
Response Force (IInd Battalion), Kota Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.K. Singhal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rupin Kala, G.C.
Mr. P.S. Naruka
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
22/04/2022
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that
your lordships may graciously be pleased to
accept and allowed this writ petition and the
impugned order dated 9.6.2017 (Annex-3)
passed by respondents may kindly be
quashed and set aside. Respondents further
directed that appointment may be given to
the petitioner on the post of constable
General without causing further delay.
Any other order, which this Hon'ble Court
deem just and proper may kindly be passed
in favour of the petitioner."
2. Brief facts of the case are that an advertisement dated
28.09.2012 was issued by the respondents holding selection for the
post of Constable, pursuant to which the petitioner applied and after
participating in the selection process was found to be a successful
candidate. However, the respondents denied appointment to the
petitioner on the ground that a criminal case was registered and
(2 of 9) [CW-11891/2017]
pending against him and his acquittal is on the basis of compromise
which is not an honourable acquittal, therefore, he is not entitled for
appointment on the post of constable.
3. Grievance of the petitioner by way of filing the present writ
petition is that the petitioner has been acquitted in criminal case vide
order dated 09.05.2013 on the basis of the compromise and the
offence alleged against him does not pertain to moral turpitude or
violence against the State, therefore he is entitled for appointment.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have
denied appointment to the petitioner even despite having been
acquitted in the criminal case registered against him, therefore, he is
entitled for appointment on the post of Constable in pursuance to the
advertisement dated 28.09.2012. He relied upon the order passed by
a Coordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Hanuman Gurjar
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected petitions, decided
on 12.03.2019.
5. Counsel for the respondents while opposing the writ petition
submitted that after being successful in the selection process, it was
found that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner,
therefore, the respondents denied appointment to the petitioner.
Counsel further submits that although the petitioner was acquitted
by the learned trial court vide order dated 09.05.2013 in the alleged
criminal case on the basis of compromise, but the acquittal was not
an honorable acquittal and therefore the respondents vide order
dated 09.06.2017 rightly rejected candidature of the petitioner for
appointment on the post of Constable.
6. Counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs.
(3 of 9) [CW-11891/2017]
Love Kush Meena, reported in (2021) 8 SCC 774 where in paras-
24, 25 & 28 it has been held as under :-
"24. Examining the controversy in the
present case in the conspectus of the
aforesaid legal position, what is important
to note is the fact that the view of this
Court has depended on the nature of
offence charged and the result of the same.
The mere fact of an acquittal would not
suffice but rather it would depend on
whether it is a clean acquittal based on
total absence of evidence or in the criminal
jurisprudence requiring the case to be
proved beyond reasonable doubt, that
parameter having not been met, benefit of
doubt has been granted to the Accused. No
doubt, in that facts of the present case, the
person who ran the tractor over the
deceased lady was one of the other co-
Accused but the role assigned to the others
including the Respondent herein was not of
a mere bystander or being present at site.
The attack with knives was alleged against
all the other co-Accused including the
Respondent.
25. We may also notice this is a clear case
where the endeavour was to settle the
dispute, albeit not with the job in mind.
This is obvious from the recital in the
judgment of the Trial Court that the
compoundable offences were first
compounded during trial but since the
offence Under Section 302/34 IPC could not
be compounded, the Trial Court continued
and qua those offences the witnesses
turned hostile. We are of the view that this
can hardly fall under the category of a
clean acquittal and the Judge was thus
right in using the terminology of benefit of
doubt in respect of such acquittal.
28. We may note here that the circular
dated 28.03.2017 is undoubtedly very wide
in its application. It seeks to give the
benefit to candidates including those
acquitted by the Court by giving benefit of
doubt. However, such circular has to be
read in the context of the judicial
pronouncements and when this Court has
repeatedly opined that giving benefit of
doubt would not entitle candidate for
appointment, despite the circular, the
impugned decision of the competent
authority dated 23.05.2017 cannot be said
(4 of 9) [CW-11891/2017]
to suffer from infirmity as being in violation
of the circular when it is in conformity with
the law laid down by this Court."
7. Counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Police
Vs. Raj Kumar, reported in (2021) 8 SCC 347 where in paras-15,
16, 17, 31 & 32 it has been held as under :-
"15. This Court has, in the past, on several
occasions, dealt with questions which are
similar, if not entirely identical to what is
involved in the present case, to wit, whether
in the event of exoneration or acquittal of an
applicant/candidate arrayed as Accused of
various offences is a decisive factor for
consideration of his or her suitability. Several
judgments in the past had appeared to draw
a distinction between "clean" acquittal of
Accused individuals on the one hand and
those acquitted or exonerated on account of
benefit of doubt. Similarly, where candidates
were charged with grave offences involving
moral turpitude as well as larger outcomes
were examined. Another area which engaged
this Court's attention was the effect of non-
disclosure of pending criminal cases. Matters
came to a head when all these issues were
referred to authoritative decision by a larger
three judge Bench.
16. In Avtar Singh (supra), the three-judge
bench, after detailed discussion of the various
circumstances that arose when public
authorities are called upon to deal with such
cases, recorded its conclusions in the
following manner:(SCC p.507,para-38)
"38. We have noticed
various decisions and
tried to explain and
reconcile them as far as
possible. In view of
aforesaid discussion,
we summarize our
conclusion thus:
38.1 Information given
to the employer by a
candidate as to
conviction, acquittal or
arrest, or pendency of
a criminal case,
(5 of 9) [CW-11891/2017]
whether before or after
entering into service
must be true and there
should be no
suppression or false
mention of required
information.
38.2 While passing
order of termination of
services or cancellation
of candidature for
giving false
information, the
employer may take
notice of special
circumstances of the
case, if any, while
giving such
information."
17. There are subsequent judgments too in
this regard which have followed the ruling in
Joginder Singh v. State (UT of Chandigarh:
State UT of Chandigarh Vs. Pradeep Kumar &
Anil Bhardwaj Vs. High Court of M.P., before
proceeding to analyze the facts in each
appeal, it would also be useful to reproduce
the relevant extract of this Court's ruling in
Mehar Singh (supra) where it was held as
follows:(Mehar Singh case, SCC p.703, para-
35)
"35.The police force is a
disciplined force. It
shoulders the great
responsibility of
maintaining law and
order and public order in
the society. People repose
great faith and confidence
in it. It must be worthy of
that confidence. A
candidate wishing to join
the police force must be a
person of utmost
rectitude. He must have
impeccable character and
integrity. A person having
criminal antecedents will
not fit in this category.
Even if he is acquitted or
discharged in the criminal
case, that acquittal or
discharge order will have
to be examined to see
whether he has been
(6 of 9) [CW-11891/2017]
completely exonerated in
the case because even a
possibility of his taking to
the life of crimes poses a
threat to the discipline of
the police force. The
Standing Order,
therefore, has entrusted
the task of taking
decisions in these matters
to the Screening
Committee. The decision
of the Screening
Committee must be taken
as final unless it is mala
fide. In recent times, the
image of the police force
is tarnished. Instances of
police personnel behaving
in a wayward manner by
misusing power are in
public domain and are a
matter of concern. The
reputation of the police
force has taken a beating.
In such a situation, we
would not like to dilute
the importance and
efficacy of a mechanism
like the Screening
Committee created by the
Delhi Police to ensure
that persons who are
likely to erode its
credibility do not enter
the police force. At the
same time, the Screening
Committee must be alive
to the importance of trust
reposed in it and must
treat all candidates with
even hand."
31. Public service-like any other, pre-
supposes that the state employer has an
element of latitude or choice on who should
enter its service. Norms, based on principles,
govern essential aspects such as
qualification, experience, age, number of
attempts permitted to a candidate, etc.
These, broadly constitute eligibility
conditions required of each candidate or
applicant aspiring to enter public service.
Judicial review, under the Constitution, is
permissible to ensure that those norms are
fair and reasonable, and applied fairly, in a
non-discriminatory manner. However,
(7 of 9) [CW-11891/2017]
suitability is entirely different; the autonomy
or choice of the public employer, is greatest,
as long as the process of decision making is
neither illegal, unfair, or lacking in bona
fides.
32. The High Court's approach, evident from
its observations about the youth and age of
the candidates, appears to hint at the
general acceptability of behaviour which
involves petty crime or misdemeanour. The
impugned order indicates a broad view, that
such misdemeanour should not be taken
seriously, given the age of the youth and the
rural setting. This Court is of opinion that
such generalizations, leading to condonation
of the offender's conduct, should not enter
the judicial verdict and should be avoided.
Certain types of offences, like molestation of
women, or trespass and beating up, assault,
causing hurt or grievous hurt, (with or
without use of weapons), of victims, in rural
settings, can also be indicative of caste or
hierarchy-based behaviour. Each case is to
be scrutinized by the concerned public
employer, through its designated officials-
more so, in the case of recruitment for the
police force, who are under a duty to
maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since
their ability to inspire public confidence is a
bulwark to society's security."
8. I have heard counsels for the parties and perused the record
and also gone through the judgments cited (supra).
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments in the matter of
Commissioner of Police & State of Rajasthan Vs. Love Kush
Meena (both supra) had an occasion to take into consideration
what has been observed in Avtar Singh's case & Mehar Singh (both
supra) and made much emphasis on the point that while considering
the candidature of a candidate, the employer has to examine very
minutely and in its entirety the criminal antecedents against such
candidate before offering appointment, in particular in the disciplined
security forces and observed that the police force is a disciplined
force and therefore shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining
law and order and public order in the society and as the people
(8 of 9) [CW-11891/2017]
repose great faith in the police force, therefore it must be worthy of
that confidence.
10. In the light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matters of Commissioner of Police and State of
Rajasthan Vs. Love Kush Meena (both supra), I am of the view
that before the offer of appointment is made, the employer has to
take into consideration and adjudge the suitability of a candidate as
regards the criminal antecedents against the candidate and to be
more specific in the disciplined security force and simultaneously it
has also to be examined in case of acquittal whether its an
honourable acquittal or based on giving benefit of doubt or in the
circumstances the witnesses being turned hostile. The another
important point to be kept in mind by the employer is to see whether
the criminal case pertains to moral turpitude. The law on these
points has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various
cases some of which are referred to supra. Now what remains is
where there is clean and honourable acquittal and the crime alleged
against the candidate does not pertain to moral turpitude, the same
may not come as a bar in seeking appointment but if the position is
contrary, the candidate is not entitled for appointment, as has been
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
11. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition filed by the
petitioner deserves to be dismissed; for the reasons, firstly, though
the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Trial Court vide order
dated 09.05.2013 on the ground of compromise, but the same in my
considered view is not a clean acquittal, secondly, the matter relates
to the appointment in Disciplined Security Forces, therefore, the
Selection Committee has not committed any illegality in rejecting the
candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of
(9 of 9) [CW-11891/2017]
Constable, thirdly, in view of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Police and Vs. Raj
Kumar and State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Love Kush Meena (both
supra), I am not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. Hence, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
Jyoti/64
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
