Ranbir Singh vs State of Haryana and Others

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—The petitioner has been denied appointment as Constable in Haryana Police after selection when it was revealed during verification of character antecedents that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case in FIR No. 188 dated 20.08.2009 under S. 394 IPC registered at Police Station Shivaji Colony, Rohtak for committing dacoity. The petitioner had applied under advertisement dated 24.07.2008 in which there was a term and condition which reads:--

A candidate against whom a criminal case stands registered and is under investigation or pending trial or who has been convicted by a Court of Law need not apply.

The case of the petitioner after provisional selection but before appointment was examined by the respondents in the light of the Supreme Court decision in Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary and Others Vs. Sushil Kumar, where the same situation had arisen as in this case. In that case, a Constable was selected but not appointed on verification of antecedent record revealing that he had been acquitted by the trial Court for offences under Ss. 304/324 and 394 read with S. 34 IPC. The Central Administrative Tribunal had directed the police authorities to re-consider the case of petitioner for appointment since the candidate had been acquitted of the criminal charge. However, the Police Department thought otherwise that appointment of such a person would not be desirable and, therefore, carried an appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of the learned Tribunal. The Supreme Court found the direction of the Tribunal unjustified and held that it will not be desirable to appoint the respondent to service.

In this case, there was a clear term in the advertisement itself that those who have criminal cases registered or are under investigation or pending trial or who have been convicted need not apply. No doubt the FIR was registered after the application forms were submitted and there was nothing then against the petitioner. The question is whether the condition would apply in the future as well and what would acquittal mean or entail in the circumstances where both the FIR and acquittal took place after start but before closing of the recruitment process.

The argument of Dr. Redhu that the impugned order dated 28.01.2013 (P-8) rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointment and grant of constabulary number is non-speaking and cryptic is attractive in first flush but the justification given in the written statement is sufficient to non-suit the petitioner that it is not desirable to appoint the petitioner as a constable in a disciplined force especially in the light of the dicta laid down in Sushil Kumar case.

Dr. Redhu relies on the judgment in the case of Jagmohan Lal Vs. State of Punjab and Others, and the Division Bench decisions of this Court in Smt. Poonam Rani v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., 2008(1) SCT 819, Shiv Kumar Goel v. State of Haryana and another, 2007(1) SCT 739, Ramnik Kumar and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Others, , Shashi Kumar v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and another, 2005(1) SCT 576, CWP No. 4452 of 2008 titled Amit Kumar v. State of Haryana and others decided on 15.05.2008 and CWP No. 17043 of 2007 titled Pardeep Kumar v. State of Haryana and others decided on 02.05.2008.

Ms. Kirti Singh, learned DAG, Haryana relies on the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 12693 of 2012 titled Pritam Singh v. State of Haryana and others decided on 01.08.2013 in which I had occasion to deal with the same issue. I held:--

It is well settled that mere selection does not give an indefeasible right to appointment. The Government is well within its right to withhold appointment on a lingering doubt as to the moral standards of a candidate who aspires appointment in the uniformed police force. In taking such a decision, no stigma is cast; no moral judgment is involved; suspicion alone is sufficient to deny appointment to a job which requires the protection of life and liberty of citizens by the police.

The defence of the State in response to this petition based on instructions of the Director General of Police, Haryana issued vide memo dated 2.7.2007 (R-3) and 13.11.2007 (R-4) which are salutary inasmuch they restrict entry of candidates charged during a trial with offences involving moral turpitude but acquitted merely on technical grounds or on account of giving benefit of doubt may not be considered for employment as constables. The purpose and object behind the aforesaid Notifications and directions was to restrict the entry of persons of criminal background involving heinous crime and offence bearing on moral turpitude. There is no place for such people in the disciplined force.

A reading of the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak dated 21.01.2011 of acquittal shows that the eye-witnesses either turned hostile or did not support the prosecution case. The complainant against the petitioner also did not support the prosecution case and that is how the case collapsed leading to acquittal.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Rule 12.18 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as applicable to the State of Haryana and amended vide notification dated 18.06.2002 deals with verification of character of recruits and reads as follows:

Rule 12.18 Recruits verification of character:

Verification rolls of selected candidates for the post of Constable shall be sent to the local police and criminal investigating department with a copy to the concerned District Magistrate and character verification shall be done as per the extant Government instructions on the subject. Candidate who has been convicted for any offence under any law, under moral turpitude, as specified in the Govt. instructions from time to time, shall not be considered for appointment as Constable under these rules.

The Director General of Police, Haryana has issued instructions dated 02.07.2007 on the subject in issue which read as under:--

Subject: Allotment of Constabulary numbers to the selected candidates for the post of constables.

Memorandum

Some Chairmen of Selection Boards have sought clarification regarding appointment of candidates who have been acquitted before and after submission of application forms for recruitment as Constables.

The matter has been examined and it is clarified that:

(a) Candidates who were involved in criminal cases and stand acquitted at the time of declaration of selection list may be considered for appointment as constable even if they had not disclosed the facts of their facing trial or acquittal in column No. 12 of the application form. But those candidates who have faced charges of moral turpitude during their trial but got acquitted merely on technical grounds or on account of giving of benefit of doubt may not be considered for appointment as Constable. In this regard it is stated that all cases of moral turpitude should be minutely examined after careful appraisal of the judgments and such candidates who have been acquitted honorably may, however, be considered for appointment as constable.

(b) All those candidates who are facing trial for any criminal offence will not be considered for appointment as constable.

(c) Candidates who have been convicted for any criminal offence shall not be given appointment.

Sd/- R.S. Dalal Director General of Police, Haryana.

Thereafter a clarification of the said instructions has been issued vide instructions dated 13.11.2007 which read as follows:

Memorandum

In continuation this office endst. No. 7463-68/E(II) 1 dated 02.07.2007, on the above subject.

This matter has been further examined and Clarification conveyed vide this office letter referred to above is modified as under:

(a) Candidates against whom cases are pending should be considered for allotment of Constabulary number except those who are facing investigation/trial or have been convicted in offences, involving moral turpitude.

(b) The candidates acquitted on technical grounds in offences involving moral turpitude, shall also not be considered for allotment of Constabulary number.

(c) Candidates who on appeal have been declared medically fit by the PGIMS Rohtak may be considered for allotment of Constabulary numbers. While allotting constabulary numbers in view of above clarification it may be ensured that appointments should be made against the notified vacancies only.

(R.S. Dalal) Director General of Police, Haryana

The can be no gainsaying that the terms of the advertisement alone are sufficient to exclude the petitioner from consideration altogether, which lay down that those who have criminal cases registered or are under investigation or pending trial or who have been convicted need not apply. This condition precedent is so incipient in its exclusion its design will run through till the end of the recruitment process sufficient to deny appointment even though there was no disability to start with but developed on the way. The paralyzing term in the advertisement laid down in 2008 goes further a field than the instructions dated 02.07.2007 and clarificatory instructions dated 13.11.2007 and the entire matter in the looming presence of the ratio of Sushil Kumar case.

For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this petition sufficient for admission of the matter and would dismiss the same in motion hearing.