Jharkhand High Court
Praveen Kumar Jaiswal vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 11 April, 2019
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2599 of 2018
----
Praveen Kumar Jaiswal ... Petitioner
-versus-
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pension,
Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, Eastern
Regional Office, Nizam Palace, 1st MSO Building (8th Floor), 234/4, A.J.B. Bose
Road, Kolkata, P.O., P.S. and District Kolkata 700020.
2. Central Industrial Security Force through its Deputy Inspector General, RTC,
Deoli, P.O. and P.S. CRP Line/Deoli, District Tonk (Rajasthan).
3. Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, RTC, Deoli, P.O.
and P.S. CRP Line/Deoli, District Tonk (Rajasthan).
4. Assistant Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Eastern Region
Headquarters, Chairman, Dossier Scrutiny Board, Patna, P.O. Boring Road, P.S.
Kotwali, District Patna.
5. Commandant/Training, Central Industrial Security Force, RTC, Deoli, P.O. and
P.S. CRP Line/Deoli, District Tonk (Rajasthan).
6. Assistant Commandant/Training, Central Industrial Security Force, RTC, Deoli,
P.O. and P.S. CRP Line/Deoli, District Tonk (Rajasthan).
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Afaque Ahmed, Advocate
Mr. Sharabhil Ahmed, Advocate
For the Respondents (UOI) : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, A.S.G.I.
Mr. B.K. Prasad, A.C. to A.S.G.I.
Mr. Niraj Kumar, A.C. to A.S.G.I.
----
ORDER
Reserved on 21.02.2019 Pronounced on 11.04.2019 9/ 11.04.2019 Petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for quashing the
order dated 24.04.2018 (Annexure 14), by which the petitioner was held unsuitable for appointment in CISF and his provisional offer of appointment has been cancelled. He further prays to allow him to join the service after cancelling the said order.
2. Pursuant to an advertisement published in Employment News dated 15.12.2012 for recruitment of Constables in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and Riffleman in Assam Rifles 2013, the petitioner applied. The petitioner qualified the physical and written test. After verification of all the documents, petitioner was provisionally selected for appointment as Constable (GD) in CISF. It came to light that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case, thus, his suitability for appointment in 2 CISF was sent to the Screening Committee. Petitioner was informed through Training Battalion Commander vide notice dated 19th July, 2017 to proceed to his native place till further orders. Some documents in respect of criminal case were sought for from the petitioner vide letter dated 28.09.2017. The petitioner was informed that once the Committee takes a decision, the same will be communicated. On 24th April, 2018, the impugned order was passed and competent authority took a decision that the petitioner is not suitable for appointment in CISF as he has a criminal background. Consequent upon the said letter, his provisional offer of appointment was cancelled. Challenging the said order of cancellation, petitioner has filed this writ application, stating that the criminal case, which was instituted against the petitioner was false. He submits that in the criminal case the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 29th September, 2016. Thus, the impugned order of removing the petitioner from service is absolutely bad. He submits that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service.
4. The Union of India has filed their counter affidavit. They have taken a preliminary objection that the cause of action arise within the State of Telangana and in the State of Rajasthan and thus, this Court has got no jurisdiction. On merits, they submit that provisional appointment letter was issued to the petitioner and he was on provisional appointment. It has been informed that the petitioner was directed to report on 07.03.2015, but, on his request, the period was extended and he was directed to join with effect from 05.06.2017. It was later on detected that the petitioner was implicated in a criminal case and, thus, as per the policy decision, the Screening Committee took a decision and held that the petitioner is not suitable for appointment in CISF. Counsel for the Union of India submits that as per the policy guidelines, a person, who is involved with an offence involving moral turpitude, will not be considered for recruitment. Further, he submits that in terms of the said circular, if the acquittal in a case involving moral turpitude is on the ground of hostility of the witnesses, the candidature of the said person will not be considered. He submits that the petitioner was involved in a case registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, which involves moral turpitude and the victim turned hostile. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to get the said benefit. He submits that the case of the petitioner was considered as per the policy decision and it was found that the petitioner was found unsuitable.
5. From the aforesaid facts, I find that the petitioner was 3 provisionally appointed in CISF. In the attestation form, he had disclosed that he was prosecuted and was arrested and detained. He has not suppressed the aforesaid facts. The petitioner's contention is that since he has been acquitted in the criminal case, he is entitled to be appointed. Petitioner has brought on record, the judgment of acquittal. During argument, counsel for the petitioner has also handed over the evidence of the victim girl, her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said two statements are kept on record.
6. No doubt, I find that the petitioner has been acquitted. The policy guidelines of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs is dated 1st February 2012. Clause 2 (iii) of the said guidelines provides that a candidate will not be considered for recruitment if he is involved in cases with an offence of moral turpitude. The proviso suggests that the candidate will not be debarred if he has been finally acquitted or discharged. Clause
(v) provides that if the charge against the candidate in a criminal case falls in the category of serious offence or moral turpitude, even in case of acquittal by extending benefit of doubt or on the ground that the witnesses have turned hostile, he will not be considered for appointment. As per the said guidelines, offence of rape is a serious offence and is an act of moral turpitude. No doubt, the appellant has been acquitted, but, from the judgment of acquittal, I find that the victim has stated that she was raped by this petitioner and because of said rape, she became pregnant and a child was also born, who died. This fact that she was raped by this petitioner and as a result of such rape, a child was born is the consistent prosecution story. The Trial Court considered each and every aspect of the case. The blood sample of the victim, the child and this petitioner were also obtained and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory wherein, after examination, the report was submitted. The said report was also considered by the Court concerned, which was Exhibit 8. Conclusion of the DNA test report proves that the petitioner is not the biological father of the deceased's child. The Court also concluded that it is clear from the evidence and the report also that this petitioner had not committed rape upon the victim girl and the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge and the charge failed and collapsed like house of cards. The Court has also found that the petitioner is not found guilty for committing an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Another aspect of the criminal case, which I feel to bring to notice is that the FIR states that the victim was raped in the house of this petitioner, while she 4 went there to do some work whereas in her evidence, victim gives absolutely different story that she was raped in Jungle by this petitioner, which caused pregnancy.
7. Thus, from the aforesaid facts, I find that the petitioner was acquitted on merits and not on the ground of hostility of witnesses due to fear or reprisal by the accused persons. Further, the Trial Court has not acquitted the petitioner giving benefit of doubt. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration & Others versus Pradeep Kumar & Another reported in (2018) 1 SCC 797 has held that in case when there is honourable acquittal, the person can be reinstated in service. In this case, I find from the judgment of trial Court that the acquittal is honourable and specifically the DNA report suggests that the petitioner was falsely implicated. The Screening Committee should have taken into consideration the aforesaid facts. Further, the Screening Committee has noted that the victim has been declared hostile, which is not the case though the victim has stated something opposite from the FIR and has also some where supported the defence, but, no where she was declared hostile. If a witness is declared hostile, the same is recorded by the Court while recording the deposition and then as per law, after such declaration the prosecution gets a chance to cross examine the victim, but, from the evidence, which has been placed before me, I find nothing of that sort had happened. Thus, I find that the consideration of the Screening Committee is not proper and is beyond the records.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and in view of the aforesaid judgment, this Court feels that the decision of the Screening Committee, so far as it relates to the petitioner, in its meeting dated 11.04.2018 needs to be reconsidered. I, therefore, quash the recommendation of the Screening Committee, so far as it relates to the petitioner, wherein a decision has been taken that the petitioner is not suitable for employment. Consequently, the impugned order as contained in letter No.5491 dated 24th April 2018 issued by the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, RTC, Deoli (Rajasthan)-respondent No.3 is also set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from production of a copy of this order.
9. This writ application, accordingly, stands allowed.
( Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02