Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

40. All these offences are non-cognizable and needless to state are bailable. No moral turpitude, as W.P.(C) No.2068/2010 Page 20 of 24 generically understood, is involved. The acts do not shock the moral conscious of the society and with reference to the motive do not evidence a person with depraved character. The offences are not of the kind which would justify dismissal or removal from service, if the respondent had committed the same if in service.

41. Thus, being charged with the said offences, of which the respondent has ultimately been acquitted, would not be a bar and cannot be treated as a bar to seek public employment and on being successful at the entrance exam, to be denied the same. In Delhi Administration Vs. Sushil Kumar ( JT 1996 (1) SC 34), Honble Supreme Court viewed that even if a person is acquitted or discharged in a criminal case, still it is open for the recruiting authority to cancel his selection on the basis of report of verification of character and antecedents of such person and in the background of his involvement in a criminal case. Para 3 of said judgment read as under:-

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of Supreme Court in Delhi Administration Through Its Chief Secretary And Others v. Sushil Kumar: (1996) 11 SCC 605, decision of this Court in WP(C) No. 5782/2011 Sanjeev Kumar v. Govt of NCT of Delhi And Others decided on 11.8.2011 as well as the decision of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7106/2011 Ram Kumar v. State of UP And Others decided on 19.8.2011. In the case of Sushil Kumar (supra), the admitted position was that the involvement of the respondent in a criminal case came to be known only on verification by the local police, which led to his provisional selection being cancelled. A perusal of the W.P(C) 734/2012 Page 4 of 8 judgment would also show that the respondent in that case was involved in the offences punishable under Sections 304 and 324 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 thereof. However, in the case before this Court, there has been no concealment on the part of the respondent and he was not involved in a serious offence such as murder, rape, dacoity, culpable homicide not amounting to murder, hence, the case before this Court is clearly distinguishable and in fact squarely covered by the decision of Supreme Court in Sandeep Kumar (supra). In the case of Sanjeev Kumar (supra), the petitioner before this Court was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/307/148 of the Indian Penal Code and he was acquitted on account of certain witnesses having turned hostile. Considering the nature of the offences in which the petitioner in WP (C) No. 5782/2011 was involved, the case of the respondent before this Court cannot be treated at par with him. Moreover, since there is no reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) and it appears to us that the aforesaid binding decision of the Supreme Court was not brought to the notice of this Court. In the case of Ram Kumar (supra), the appellant before the Supreme Court, while applying for the post of a Constable had submitted an affidavit stating therein that no criminal case had been registered against him. It was on a report submitted by Jaswant Nagar Police Station in District Etawah that his involvement in a criminal case registered under Section 324/323/504 IPC came to be known. On W.P(C) 734/2012 Page 5 of 8 receipt of the aforesaid report the selection of the appellant was cancelled on the ground that he had submitted an affidavit stating wrong facts and concealing correct facts and therefore his selection was irregular and illegal. The appellant filed a Writ Petition before Allahabad High Court challenging the cancellation of his selection. The Writ Petition was dismissed holding that since the appellant before the Supreme Court had furnished false information in his affidavit, the case was squarely covered by the decision of Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan And Others v. Ram Ratan Yadav: (2003) 3 SCC 437. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had been acquitted since the sole eye witness had stated during his examination in the Court that someone from the crowd had hurled abuses and in the scuffle he had got injured when he fell and his head hit a brick platform. Allowing the appeal, Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court and directed that the appellant would be taken back in service though he would not be entitled for any back wages for the period he had remained out of service. We fail to appreciate how this judgment can, in any manner, advances the case of the petitioner before this Court. In fact, the Court was of the view that it was the duty of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad as the Appointing Authority to satisfy himself on the point as to whether the appellant was suitable for appointment to the post of Constable, with reference to the nature of suppression W.P(C) 734/2012 Page 6 of 8 and nature of the criminal case. Instead of doing that he had mechanically held the selection to be irregular and illegal merely because the appellant had furnished an affidavit stating the incorrect facts.