Rajesh Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Respondents.

The Petitioner was selected as a Police Constable and during verification he filed an affidavit disclosing his involvement in two criminal cases. On the strength of such disclosure the candidature of the Petitioner came to be cancelled by the Superintendent of Police vide order dated 29.12.2006.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner moved a representation and also filed a writ petition before this Court bringing on record the fact that the Petitioner in one of the cases has been acquitted in 2003 much before the selection and in the second case he was acquitted on 25.11.2006. The aforesaid averment is found in the representation which was filed by the Petitioner before the authority concerned copy whereof is Annexure 7 to the writ petition. The impugned order has been passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur on 25.3.2007 recording that the second case is still pending trial before the concerned Court in Kushi Nagar.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the impugned order reflects complete non-application of mind inasmuch as the Petitioner had categorically stated about the acquittal order dated 25.11.2006 and the same has also been brought on record in this writ petition as Annexure 3. The aforesaid fact has been stated in para 15 of the writ petition to which there is no denial in the counter-affidavit. In para 8 of the counter-affidavit it is simply stated that the contents of paragraphs 14 to 17 are matter of record.

From a perusal of the aforesaid facts it is therefore evident that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur did not apply his mind with regard to the acquittal order which is in favour of the Petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the acquittal is a clean acquittal and it has been recorded in the judgment that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that in such situation this aspect of the matter has to be taken into consideration inasmuch as in the absence of any such allegation existing there would be no involvement of the Petitioner in a criminal case so as to disentitle him for appointment as a Police Constable. This view has been taken by me in another decision in the case of Mahtab Khan v. State of U. P. and Ors. Writ Petition No. 1882 of 2007, decided on 19.7.2010.

In view of what has been noticed above, it is clear that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur has not applied his mind to the aforesaid facts and the acquittal dated 25.11.2006 has not been noticed or has not been noticed due to an inadvertent mistake. The impugned order dated 25.3.2007 therefore is unsustainable. It is accordingly quashed.

The Respondent No. 3 is directed to re-consider the candidature of the Petitioner in the light of the observations made hereinabove and pass an appropriate order within a period of 3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.

The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.