Shatrudhan Singh Son Of Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 3279 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11210/2021

Shatrudhan Singh Son Of Shri Rambaran Singh, Aged About 23
Years, Resident Of Village Deewan Ka Pura, Post Kasimpur, Tehsil
And District Dholpur (Raj.)
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Home, Through Its
       Secretary, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2.     Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi,
       Jaipur (Raj.)
3.     Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police Head
       Office, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
4.     Superintendent Of Police, Kota-27 (Raj.)
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Parihar on behalf of Mr. Tanveer Ahamad For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

25/04/2022

1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayers:-

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

(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby quashed and set-aside the impugned order dated 17.09.2021 and the non petitioners may kindly be directed to produce the entire record before this Hon'ble Court.

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to join his duty on the post of constable General in pursuance

(2 of 10) [CW-11210/2021]

of advertisement dated 04.12.2019 in the larger interest of justice.

(iii) Issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(iv) Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petition."

2. Brief facts of the case are that an advertisement dated

04.12.2019 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 two criminal

cases were registered against him, 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 acquittal in both the

criminal cases vide order dated 06.01.2021 and 05.08.2021

(Annexures-6) and (Annexure-7) respectively 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 cases registered against him and the

respondents have given appointment to the similarly situated

candidates. Counsel further submits that in view of the condition

No.8 (VI) of the advertisement dated 04.12.2019 the petitioner is

entitled for appointment on the post of Constable.

5. Counsel for the respondents while opposing the writ petition

submitted that after being successful in the selection process,

during the verification it was found that two criminal cases were

(3 of 10) [CW-11210/2021]

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 06.01.2021 (Annexure-6) and 05.08.2021

(Annexure-7) in the alleged criminal cases on the basis of

compromise, but the acquittal was not an honorable acquittal and

therefore the respondents vide order dated 17.09.2021 rightly

denied the appointment to the petitioner 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.

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

(4 of 10) [CW-11210/2021]

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 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-

(5 of 10) [CW-11210/2021]

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,
        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

(6 of 10) [CW-11210/2021]

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 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

(7 of 10) [CW-11210/2021]

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, 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

(8 of 10) [CW-11210/2021]

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 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

(9 of 10) [CW-11210/2021]

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 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

orders dated 06.01.2021 and 05.08.2021 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 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

(10 of 10) [CW-11210/2021]

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

Upendra/125

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)