Rajiv Ranjan vs Home Department on 8 July, 2014

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Rajiv Ranjan vs Home Department on 8 July, 2014

The petitioner has challenged the decision of the respondent no. 2, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Koyla Range, Bokaro, contained in Memo No. 417 dated 31.05.2013 whereunder his representation made in the light of the judgment dated 17.01.2013 passed in W. P. (S) No. 6930 of 2012 by the Learned Single Judge of this court, has been rejected. The petitioner inter alia seeks a direction upon the respondents to allow him to join on the post of Constable in view of the call letter issued in his favour on 19.09.2009 by the respondent no. 3.

The case of the petitioner is that he was successful under the Adv. No. 03/07 for appointment as a constable in the district of Dhanbad as per list published on 11.09.2009. He was issued a call letter on 03.07.2010 to appear on 29.07.2010 with all relevant documents and also for re-measurement. However amidst all these, on 16.11.2009 his wife died leading to institution of an FIR on 17.11.2009 against the petitioner and other family members. The petitioner surrendered on 18.01.2010 before the Trial Court. In the meantime, pursuant to re-measurement exercise, he was directed to join, which he failed to do. He rather informed the respondent-authority that he was ill and also enclosed the medical certificate to that effect. Vide judgment dated 08.12.2011 passed by the Court of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chatra in S.T. No. 93 of 2010, he was acquitted of the said charges along with others. The petitioner, however, made a representation for permitting him to join. Thereafter, he approached this Court in W. P. (S) No. 6930 of 2012, which was disposed of on 17.01.2013 and the respondents were directed to decide the petitioner's representation. The said representation has been rejected by the impugned order dated 31.05.2013 bearing Memo No. 471, Annexure-12 to the writ petition. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected inter alia on the ground that acquittal of the petitioner was only in the absence of prosecution evidence being adduced and not honourable acquittal. Moreover, the petitioner deliberately concealed the factum of his implication in a criminal case and being subjected to judicial custody at the time, he sought for exemption from joining on the said post by enclosing false medical certificate. In the wake of aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of filling the application for appointment under the said advertisement, there was no criminal case pending against him. The petitioner's implication in a criminal case due to unfortunate death of his wife has ended in his acquittal which according to him was after consideration of all relevant material evidences and documents and it is in the nature of a clean acquittal and not on the ground that the prosecution has not been able to produce witness to prove charge beyond all reasonable doubts. It is submitted that the petitioner, however, committed mistake by making a wrong excuse of having fallen ill before the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondent, however, has squarely opposed the contention of the petitioner by referring to the contents of the counter affidavit. It has been submitted that the petitioner did not appear on issuance of the letter to join on the ground that he was ill. On verification it was found that a wrong information was given by him to the office of Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad about his illness, rather he was actually in jail. The said doctor, who issued the medical certificate, on being contacted also accepted his mistake. The petitioner was also sent a letter as to why legal action should not be taken against him for giving false information. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner is not worthy of being appointed as a constable in an uniformed police force. The respondents have, after considering all aspect of the matter, rejected his representation by the impugned order, which is wholly proper and just in the eyes of the law.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant materials on records. The chronology of facts, which are discussed in the earlier part of the judgment do indicate that after the selection of the petitioner and after being subjected for re-measurement, the petitioner was called to join on the post of constable for the district of Dhanbad, but by that time he was in incarceration in connection with a criminal case instituted on the death of his wife under the relevant provision of Sections 304B, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner appears to have been acquitted by the Trial Court, which has found that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge as such in absence of cogent and reliable material against the accused persons. Therefore, the petitioner was acquitted along with other accused persons. However, the acquittal of the petitioner did not relieve him from the burden which he had created upon himself by making false representation before the respondents on failing to join on the post of constable by making an excuse of illness and submitted false medical certificate. The respondents, after enquiry, have found that the petitioner had falsely represented before them and did not inform them about his incarceration in connection with a criminal case. The doctor, who had issued medical certificate of the petitioner, has also given a report that medical certificate issued by him was due to mistake. Such conduct of the petitioner, therefore, disentitled him to be appointed in an uniform police force on the post of constable. In an equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where conduct of the petitioner is also required to be considered while granting discretionary relief, the petitioner has dis-entitled himself for any discretionary relief in the matter. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court