Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Lokendra Kumar vs Union Of India And Anr on 25 April, 2019
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11341/2017
Lokendra Kumar S/o Shri Chandan Singh, Resident Of 78, Ravji
Ka Bagh, Khatipura Phatak, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Its Director, National Industrial
Security Academy, Central Industrial Secu, Hyderabad.
2. Senior Commandant/trg, National Industrial Security
Academy, Central Industrial Security Force, Gov,
Hyderabad.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Bhardwaj, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Khushwant Morwal, on behalf of Mr. Ashish Kumar, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 25/04/2019 The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dt.03.06.2017 by which the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Sub Inspector in CISF has been cancelled. The petitioner has prayed that he may be considered for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector as per his appointment order dt.15.09.2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially offered provisional appointment but he was not allowed to undergo the basic training due to registration of a criminal case against him. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner, who came to be implicated in a criminal case, was acquitted of the charges levelled against him under Sections 427, 323/34 IPC by way of compromise and he was further granted (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 02:08:58 AM) (2 of 3) [CW-11341/2017] benefit of doubt for the offences levelled under Sections 452, 365/34 IPC.
Learned counsel has submitted that the respondents issued the impugned order cancelling the appointment of the petitioner on a wrong premise and since the petitioner was acquitted of the charges, the cancellation of appointment was absolutely arbitrary exercise of power by the respondents.
Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471. Learned counsel has submitted that the Apex Court in the Case of Avtar Singh (supra) has laid down the parameters for considering the case of persons who have been acquitted in criminal case and if the offences are trivial in nature, the authorities are required to consider the same and then pass appropriate order.
Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the order passed by the by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in SBCWP No.7255/2008 [Madhav Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.] and other connected writ petitions. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
"Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are set-aside. The petitioners are directed to file representations before the respective Appointing Authorities for the reconsideration of their cases in the context of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) and this Court in the case of Kamal Singh Meena (supra). The Appointing Authority is directed to dispose of the representation/s filed by the petitioner/s by a reasoned and speaking order with reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) and this Court in the case of Kamal Singh Meena (supra) within a period of eight weeks of the receipt of the representation/s. Interim orders granted by this Court in the writ (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 02:08:58 AM) (3 of 3) [CW-11341/2017] petitions, where applicable, shall continue till the disposal of the representations and for a period of 15 days thereafter for the aggrieved petitioners to approach this Court afresh if so required."
Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the respondents have rightly passed the order dt.03.06.2018, cancelling the offer of appointment given to the petitioner as he has not disclosed the fact that he was implicated in a criminal case.
Learned counsel has submitted that the respondents have not committed any illegality while issuing the impugned order and the petitioner is not found to be a fit person to be offered appointment due to registration of criminal case against him.
I have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record.
This Court finds that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), the petitioner is required to approach the respondents by filing a detailed representation. The representation be filed by the petitioner within a period of three weeks and the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) and appropriate decision may be taken on the representation so filed by the petitioner in expeditious manner but in no case later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of such representation.
Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J A.Kumar/58 (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 02:08:58 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)