Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Dinesh Singh Bithu on 10 March, 2021
Bench: Sangeet Lodha, Rameshwar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 20/2020
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Home (Group I), Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. District Superintendent Of Police, Bikaner.
----Appellants
Versus
Dinesh Singh Bithu S/o Shri Sawai Singh Bithu, Aged About 26
Years, By Caste Charan, R/o Ward No. 10, Hamiron Ka Bas,
Village Sheethal, Napasar, Bikaner.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, Additional
Advocate General with Ms.Pratyushi
Mehta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ganga Ram Bhari
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS Judgment 10th March, 2021 Reportable Per Hon'ble Mr. Sangeet Lodha,J.
1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against order dated 22.4.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent, challenging the action of the appellants herein in rejecting his candidature for appointment to the post of Constable, has been allowed.
2. The appeal is reported to be barred by limitation for 122 days. It is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
(Downloaded on 10/03/2021 at 09:10:26 PM)
(2 of 8) [SAW-20/2020] The application seeking condonation of delay is not opposed by the counsel appearing for the respondent. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
3. The facts relevant are that Director General of Police, Rajasthan issued an advertisement dated 25.05.2018 inviting applications for recruitment to the posts of Constable in different categories. The respondent applied for appointment on the post of Constable (General). Having cleared the written examination, the respondent was called for Physical Suitability Test/Physical Efficiency Test (PST/PET). Though, selected, the respondent was denied appointment inasmuch as, he was involved in a criminal case wherein he was acquitted but his acquittal was not considered honourable acquittal.
4. Challenging the action of the appellants in rejecting his candidature, the respondent preferred a writ petition before this Court, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge following a coordinate Bench decision of this Court in S.B.C.Writ Petition No.19166/18 :Kuldeep Bhakar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and accordingly, the appellants have been directed to accord appointment to the respondent pursuant to the selection, if otherwise eligible. Hence, this appeal.
5. Learned AAG appearing for the State contended that the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in allowing the writ petition in light of Kuldeep Bhakar's case (supra). Learned AAG submitted that the respondent was acquitted in the criminal case for offences punishable under Sections 323, 336, 427, 452/34 IPC by the trial Court giving benefit of doubt due to lack of evidence and thus, he was not entitled for appointment. Learned AAG submitted that learned Single Judge has not considered the law (Downloaded on 10/03/2021 at 09:10:27 PM) (3 of 8) [SAW-20/2020] laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India: 2016 (8) SCC, 471. That apart, the circular dated 28.03.2017 issued by the State Government issuing guidelines regarding appointment of the candidates involved in criminal cases, has also not been examined by the learned Single Judge. Drawing the attention of the Court to the decision of the Apex Court in Avtar Singh's case (supra), learned AAG submitted that in a case involving moral turpitude if on technical ground giving benefit of doubt, an accused is acquitted of the charges, the employer has right to deny the appointment taking into consideration the antecedent of the candidate and other facts available. Learned AAG submitted that in the first instance, in the application form, provided for giving details about the FIR being lodged, the respondent has specifically mentioned 'No' and thus, the factum of involvement in criminal case was concealed, however, in the verification roll, the respondent had disclosed that he was an accused in a criminal case but he was acquitted. Learned AAG submitted that admittedly, the respondent was an accused in a criminal case involving moral turpitude wherein he has not been honourably acquitted and thus, the denial of appointment to him cannot be faulted with. Relying upon decision of the Supreme Court in Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration & Ors. vs. Pradeep Kumar & Anr.: (2018) 1 SCC 797, learned AAG submitted that acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive of the suitability of the candidates in the post and on that account, he does not automatically become entitled for appointment to the post. Learned AAG submitted that a candidate to be recruited to the police service must be of impeccable character and integrity. Learned AAG submitted that where a (Downloaded on 10/03/2021 at 09:10:27 PM) (4 of 8) [SAW-20/2020] person is to be appointed to a post in a police force, nature of offence in which he is involved, whether it was an honourable acquittal or only an extension of benefit of doubt because of witnesses turned hostile and flaws in the prosecution, are the relevant aspects need to be examined by the Appointing Authority. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the respondent who was not honourably acquitted, has rightly not been offered appointment and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the lapse of the respondent in not disclosing the involvement in a criminal case in the first instance, while submitting the application form, was absolutely bona fide inasmuch as, at the time of verification, the respondent has clearly mentioned the factum of his involvement in a criminal case and acquittal therein. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent was acquitted of the charges not on account of extending the benefits of doubt rather, he was acquitted inasmuch as, there was not even an iota of evidence against him and thus, by all means, the acquittal of the respondent in a criminal case was honourable acquittal. Thus, keeping in view the circular dated 28.03.2017 issued by the State Government, the decision of the Apex Court in Avtar Singh's case (supra) and various Bench decisions of this Court, the respondent is entitled for appointment on the post of Constable pursuant to the selection in question. Learned counsel submitted that the contention sought to be raised by the appellants regarding the respondent's acquittal being not honourable acquittal, is factually incorrect. (Downloaded on 10/03/2021 at 09:10:27 PM)
(5 of 8) [SAW-20/2020]
7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
8. Indisputably, the respondent was involved in a criminal case wherein he was tried for offences under Sections 323, 336, 427, 452/34 IPC. It is true that in the application initially filed, the respondent has not disclosed his involvement in criminal case, but then, the fact remains that before appointment being accorded, in the verification roll, the factum of his being tried by the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction was disclosed and it was specifically mentioned that he was acquitted of the charges and thus, the allegation that the respondent had not disclosed the relevant facts regarding his involvement in the criminal case and the fate thereof, is not correct. Moreover, a perusal of the order impugned in the writ petition reveals that the respondent has been denied appointment not for the reason that he had suppressed/ concealed his criminal antecedents, rather, he has been denied appointment solely for the reason that the offences for which, the respondent was tried were not trivial in nature and he was acquitted of the charges for want of evidence.
9. It is not disputed that the State Government has laid down guidelines vide circular dated 28.3.2017, wherein, it is specifically provided that if the criminal antecedents are disclosed by the candidate in application form or the verification roll (either of these two) and he has been acquitted of the charges, he will be considered for appointment. It is further mentioned that where the candidates who are under trial or held guilty of the charges of the offences of moral turpitude or punished therefor, shall not be entitled to be considered for appointment.
(Downloaded on 10/03/2021 at 09:10:27 PM)
(6 of 8) [SAW-20/2020]
10. In Pradeep Kumar's case (supra) relied upon by the learned AAG, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while relying upon decisions in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi vs. Mehar Singh: (2013) 7 SCC 685, Inspector General of Police vs. S.Samuthiram: (2013) 1 SCC 598 and Avtar Singh's case (supra), held:
"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.
14......
15. From the above details, we find that the Screening Committee examined each and every case of the respondents and reasonings for their acquittal and taken the decision. While deciding whether a person involved in a criminal case has been acquitted or discharged should be appointed to a post in a police force, nature of offence in which he is involved, whether it was an honourable acquittal or only an extension of benefit of doubt because of witnesses turned hostile and flaws in the prosecution are all the aspects to be considered by the Screening Committee for taking the decision whether the candidate is suitable for the post. As pointed out earlier, the Screening Committee examined each and every case and reasonings for their acquittal and took decision that the respondents are not suitable for the post of Constable in Chandigarh Police. The procedure followed is as per guideline 2(A)(b) and object of such screening is to ensure that only persons with impeccable character enters police force. While so, the court cannot substitute its views for the decision of the Screening Committee.
16. On behalf of the respondents, much reliance was placed upon Joginder Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others (2015) 2 SCC 377. In the said case, the appellant thereon was charged under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325 and 307 IPC but acquitted by the trial court holding that the (Downloaded on 10/03/2021 at 09:10:27 PM) (7 of 8) [SAW-20/2020] prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against him since complainant as well as injured eye witnesses failed to identify the assailants and the complainant had stated that his signature was obtained on a blank sheet by the Investigating Officer. The case involved was a family dispute. In such facts and circumstances, this Court held that acquittal of appellant Joginder Singh was an honourable acquittal and hence, he should not be denied appointment to the post in question. The decision in Joginder Singh case does not advance the case of the respondents herein.
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 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."
11. As laid down by the Supreme Court, acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post and the employer has right to consider the antecedents of the candidate and decide whether he is suitable for appointment to the post. There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that the acquittal or discharge by itself cannot lead to presumption that a person has been honourably acquitted/ completely exonerated. But, at the same time, if a person is acquitted of the charges for want of evidence, it would not necessarily lead to inference that the acquittal of the person by the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction is not honourable.
12. Adverting to the facts of the present case, a bare perusal of the order of acquittal placed on record reveals that inter alia the respondent herein was acquitted of the charges for offences under Sections 452, 323, 427, 336/34 IPC by the Court observing that there is not even an iota of evidence against him and the (Downloaded on 10/03/2021 at 09:10:27 PM) (8 of 8) [SAW-20/2020] prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in no manner, it could be said that the acquittal of the respondent of the charges was not honourable acquittal.
13. In view of the discussion above, the order impugned in the writ petition passed by the appellant-employer denying appointment to the respondent on the premise that the respondent was tried for offences which are not trivial in nature, was not sustainable in the eyes of law and, thus, the learned Single Judge has committed no error in allowing the writ petition so as to warrant interference by us in exercise of intra-Court appeal jurisdiction.
14. The special appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.
(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
Aditya/-
(Downloaded on 10/03/2021 at 09:10:27 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)