Man Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 09.11.2015 (Annexure-4) as well as the order dated 13.06.2017

(Annexure-8).

Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to advertisement dated 14.07.2013 issued by respondent, petitioner had applied for the post of Constable

(driver) and after being successful in the recruitment process he was given appointment on the post of Constable (driver), however, after verifying the

antecedents of the petitioner the respondent vide order dated 09.11.2015 cancelled the selection of the petitioner for the post of Constable (driver).

Being aggrieved by order dated 09.11.2015 petitioner has filed SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1105/2016 before this court which was disposed of by Co-

ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 11.02.2016 which reads as under:-

Having regard to the facts of the case, writ petition is disposed of requiring the petitioner to approach respondent No.3- the Superintendent of Police,

Bharatpur, by filing a representation along with a copy of this order, who shall, after verifying the facts afore-stated, consider and decide the same by

appropriate speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of its making, addressing his grievance or otherwise give reasons.

This also disposed of stay application.

Thereafter in pursuance to order dated 11.02.2016 the petitioner submitted representation before the respondent and the respondents reconsidered

case of the petitioner and took conscious decision and decided the representation submitted by the petitioner vide order dated 13.06.2017 (Annexure-

8). Hence this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 09.11.2015 (Annexure-4) and 13.06.2017 (Annexure-8).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier one criminal case was pending against the petitioner in which he was given benefit of

probation and on the date of submitting the application form no criminal case was pending against the petitioner. In support of his contention counsel

relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the matter of State of Rajasthan Vs. Atma Ram, D.B. Spl. Appeal Writ No. 33/2020

decided on 27.01.2020, wherein it was held as under:-

There is delay of 150 days in filing the present appeal. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed which, for the reasons

mentioned therein, is allowed. Delay in filing this appeal is thus condoned.

This special appeal has been preferred by the State/appellants claiming the following relief:

It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the present special appeal may kindly be allowed and the order dated 13.03.2019 passed by the learned Single

Judge may be quashed and set aside and the writ petition may kindly be dismissed with cost.

Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble

Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Rakesh Singh (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1421/2019, decided on 10.01.2020), which reads as

under:-

The present controversy arises out of the recruitment process for the post of Constable (General), Non-TSP area in pursuance of the advertisement

dated 25.05.2018. The petitioner (respondent herein) secured merit position in the final merit-list but was not accorded appointment on the ground that

a criminal case was registered against him and the information for the same had not been furnished by him in the initial application form.

Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Manish Vyas submits as per Annex.5 of the writ petition, which is application form, there was a condition

that the candidate was required to answer a question ""whether any FIR has ever been lodged against him"", to which the respondent-petitioner had

stated ""No"", which is gross violation and amounts to suppression of fact and as such he cannot be permitted to be appointed in the disciplined force of

Police Department.

The Additional Advocate General, Mr. Vyas has also vehemently submitted that acquittal was due to giving him benefit of doubt and was not absolute

acquittal and thus also rejection of the candidature of the respondent despite coming in merit was justified.

Mr. G.R. Bhari, learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is an admitted position that the circular dated 28.03.2017 issued by the appellants

clearly states that a person who has mentioned the details of the criminal case either in the application form or in the verification form, shall be entitled

to be given appointment even when he has been acquitted on the ground of proposition of benefit of doubt. Relevant portion of the circular reads as

follows:

, : -5(01).././../2017/1300 :

28/03/2017 :- /

,

( ) ◌

:- 1 , .. ◌ 2 (

, ) 3 / 4

12 ( / /

) 5 15(1)( )

Mr. Bhari, learned counsel for the respondent further submits that since the circular dated 28.03.2017 is a comprehensive policy document issued by

the appellants, they themselves are bound by the same and the respondent had clearly mentioned about the criminal case in verification form and thus

he was entitled for appointment as per his merit in accordance with law.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court notes that the circular dated 28.03.2017 required the respondent to mention details of the case

either at the time of filing of the application form or in the verification form and upon perusal of the verification form, this Court finds that details of the

case has been given by the respondent- petitioner in question. The circular clearly stipulates giving of appointment to such candidates who have been

acquitted on account of benefit of doubt. This Court further notes that the acquittal happened on 24th January 2018, whereas the verification form was

filled on 6th June, 2018. These facts are not disputed by the learned AAG.

In light of the aforesaid observations, no interference is called for in the impugned order. The Appeal is dismissed.

Further, a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Love Kush Meena (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.373/2019

decided on 16.07.2019), observed as under:

The learned Single Judge while relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.: SLP(C) No.

20525/11, decided on 21.7.16, a Bench decision of this court in Bhuta Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B.Civil Special appeal (Writ) No. 442/16,

decided on 8.8.16 and a decision of this court in the respondent's own case in S.B.C.Writ Petition No.2391/16, decided on 11.11.16, held that the

respondent is entitled to be considered for appointment on the post of Constable, notwithstanding his involvement in the criminal case wherein he was

acquitted. Hence, this appeal.

We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

It is true that the respondent was prosecuted by the criminal court of competent jurisdiction for offences under Sections 341, 323, 302/34 IPC. A

perusal of the judgment reveals that though the trial court has recorded the finding that the charges inter alia against the respondent has not been

proved beyond doubt but as a matter of fact, it was a case wherein no cogent evidence was connecting the accused persons to the commission of

offence. Moreover, the issue with regard to the respondent's entitlement for consideration for appointment to the post of Constable notwithstanding his

involvement in the criminal case and the order of acquittal passed by the trial court as aforesaid, giving him benefit of doubt, had already been decided

by the learned Single Judge of this court vide judgment dated 11.11.16 rendered in S.B.C.Writ Petition No.2391/16, which has attained finality. In this

view of the matter, the action of the appellants in denying the appointment to the respondent on the self same ground was not justified. The order

earlier passed by the appellants denying the appointment to the respondent was quashed by the learned Single Judge observing that the relevant facts

as to the antecedents as well as the facts indicated in the judgment were apparently not taken into consideration.

Moreover, the learned Single Judge has decided the petition in light of a Bench decision of this court rendered in Bhuta Ram's case (supra), which

was decided while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case (supra). Thus, having regard to the facts and

circumstances of the case, we do not feel persuaded to take a different view in the matter and thus, the order impugned passed by the learned Single

Judge does not warrant any interference by us in exercise of intra court appeal jurisdiction.

4 In light of the judgments referred hereinabove, the present appeal is dismissed in the same terms. All pending applications also stand dismissed.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the petitioner has concealed the fact about pendency of criminal case against

him in the application form.

Learned counsel further submits that it is for the employer to take a conscious decision to consider antecedents of the petitioner and the employer

within its domain can cancel selection of a candidate on the ground of involvement in criminal case.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar, reported (2018) 18 SCC 73 3has held in

para 13, 14, 15 and 16 as under:-

In Avtar Singh, though this Court was principally concerned with the question as to non-disclosure or wrong disclosure of information, it was

observed in para 38.5 that even in cases where a truthful disclosure about a concluded case was made, the employer would still have a right to

consider antecedents of the candidate and could not be compelled to appoint such candidate.

In the present case, as on the date when the Respondent had applied, a criminal case was pending against him. Compromise was entered into only

after an affidavit disclosing such pendency was filed. On the issue of compounding of offences and the effect of acquittal under Section 320(8) CrPC,

the law declared by this Court in Mehar Singh, specifically in paras 34 and 35 completely concludes the issue. Even after the disclosure is made by a

candidate, the employer would be well within his rights to consider the antecedents and the suitability of the candidate. While so considering, the

employer can certainly take into account the job profile for which the selection is undertaken, the severity of the charges levelled against the candidate

and whether the acquittal in question was an honourable acquittal or was merely on the ground of benefit of doubt or as a result of composition.

The reliance placed by Mr. Dave, learned Amicus Curiae on the decision of this Court in Mohammed Imran is not quite correct and said decision

cannot be of any assistance to the Respondent. In para 5 of the said decision, this Court had found that the only allegation against the Appellant

therein was that he was travelling in an auto- rickshaw which was following the auto- rickshaw in which the prime Accused, who was charged Under

Section 376 IPC, was travelling with the prosecutrix in question and that all the Accused were acquitted as the prosecutrix did not support the

allegation. The decision in Mohammed Imran thus turned on individual facts and cannot in any way be said to have departed from the line of decisions

rendered by this Court in Mehar Singh, Parvez Khan and Pradeep Kumar.

We must observe at this stage that there is nothing on record to suggest that the decision taken by the concerned authorities in rejecting the

candidature of the Respondent was in any way actuated by mala fides or suffered on any other count. The decision on the question of suitability of the

Respondent, in our considered view, was absolutely correct and did not call for any interference. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the

decisions rendered by the Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench and dismiss Writ Petition No. 9412 of 2013 preferred by the Respondent. No

costs.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons, firstly the petitioner has concealed the registration/pendency of

criminal case against him at the time of submitting the application form, secondly it is within the domain of employer to consider antecedents of the

petitioner and can take a decision not to give him appointment considering his criminal criminal antecedents and can cancel appointment and the same

cannot be intervened in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of MP Vs. Abhijit (Supra); thirdly the

respondents have duly reconsidered case of the petitioner and did not find him suitable for appointment on the post of Constable (driver) more

particularly in the disciplinary forces and for the reasons, I am not inclined to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of

Constitution of India.

Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed.