Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 2205 (ALL)

SHEOBIR SINGH SIROHI v. STATE OF U. P.

2003-09-22

VINEET SARAN

body2003
VINEET SARAN, J. ( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in the State Police Service of Uttar pradesh. ( 2 ) THE admitted facts of this case are that the petitioner had applied for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector and after having been successful in the written examination, vide letter dated 7. 5. 1981, he was required to appear before the Interview Board on 19. 5. 1981. The petitioner appeared before the Interview Board and it is his case that he had been declared successful for selection and appointment as Sub-Inspector. On 19. 8. 1981, a report was called for by the superintendent of Police, Police Headquarters from the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr with regard to the verification of the character of the petitioner. The District Magistrate, Bulandshahr, submitted his report in September, 1981, stating that there was a Case Crime No. 52 under section 302/307, I. P. C. registered against the petitioner in which he was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Court. On the basis of the said report, the petitioner was not sent for training and was also not given appointment as Sub-Inspector. Thus, the petitioner filed this writ petition claiming that, since he had already been acquitted by the High Court on 3. 10. 1979 in Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 1975 (vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition), he was entitled to appointment as a Sub-Inspector on the basis of the selection made by the respondents in which he had duly qualified and had been selected. ( 3 ) LEARNED standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute this factual position but has, however, submitted that since the petitioner had given a wrong information with regard to the pendency of criminal proceedings against him at the time of filling up the form on the date of interview, i. e. , on 19. 5. 1981, hence he was guilty of mis-information and thus not entitled to appointment as a Sub-Inspector. ( 4 ) I have heard Sri W. H. Khan and Sri A. K. Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the materials on record. 5. 1981, hence he was guilty of mis-information and thus not entitled to appointment as a Sub-Inspector. ( 4 ) I have heard Sri W. H. Khan and Sri A. K. Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the materials on record. ( 5 ) NO doubt the petitioner was an accused in a criminal case under Section 302/307, I. P. C. and had also been convicted by the trial court but subsequently by judgment of this Court dated 3. 10. 1979 in Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 1975 he had been acquitted. Once the petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal case by the High Court, then it would be deemed in law that in fact he was never involved in any criminal case. The Apex Court in the case of B. R. Kapur v. State of tamil Nadu and Anr. , (2001) 7 SCC 231 , has held that "if the appeal of the accused succeeds, the conviction is wiped out as cleanly as if it had never existed and the sentence is set aside. A successful appeal means that the stigma of the offence is altogether erased". ( 6 ) CONSIDERING this aspect of the case, the petitioner could not have been deprived of appointment as Sub-Inspector merely on the basis of his involvement in a criminal case in which he had admittedly been acquitted. The submission of the learned standing counsel that wrong information had been furnished by the petitioner at the time when he filled up the form just before the interview stating that he was not involved in any criminal case does not have much force as the Judgment of the High Court acquitting him in the criminal case had already been delivered in the year 1979, i. e. , a couple of years prior to the filling up of the form by the petitioner. The effect of the judgment of the High Court in appeal would certainly be that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner never existed and the stigma of the offence against him had been erased. The effect of the judgment of the High Court in appeal would certainly be that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner never existed and the stigma of the offence against him had been erased. Ordinarily, every statute operates prospectively unless expressly made retrospective whereas the judgment of a court of law operates retrospectively unless expressly made prospective, as has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Awadhesh kumar Sharma v. Union of India and Ors. , 2001 (4) AWC 2822 : (2000) 1 ESC 688. Thus, the appointment of the petitioner could not have been withheld merely because of a criminal case having been registered against him in which though he may have been initially convicted but had been acquitted in appeal much prior to the filling up of the form before the interview. Even otherwise, the petitioner has, by means of a supplementary-affidavit, brought on record the subsequent certificates issued by the Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahr, dated 25. 11. 1982 and that of the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr, dated 3. 12. 1982 wherein also it has been clearly stated that the petitioner had already been acquitted by the High Court on 3. 10. 1979 and bears an excellent character and there is nothing against him. In such view of the matter, the denial of appointment to the petitioner, as Sub-Inspector of Police despite his having been qualified for the said post, was totally unjustified in the facts and circumstances of this case. The writ petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled for appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police on the basis of selection held in the year 1981. ( 7 ) ON the strength of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner had already joined the training for appointment as Sub-Inspector which he completed on 3. 1. 1984, as has been stated in para 3 (k) of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. It is also admitted that after the completion of the training, the petitioner had been given appointment as Sub-Inspector and he is continuing to work as such. In such circumstances it is provided that the petitioner shall be permitted to continue to work as Sub-Inspector as it has already been held that he was entitled for appointment on the basis of examination and selection held in the year 1981. In such circumstances it is provided that the petitioner shall be permitted to continue to work as Sub-Inspector as it has already been held that he was entitled for appointment on the basis of examination and selection held in the year 1981. He shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits for payment of increment, promotions, etc. ( 8 ) IN the result, this writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. .