JUDGMENT : Hon'ble MEHTA, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition praying for the following relief:- 1. The order dt. 22.12.2009 (Annex.6) may very kindly be quashed and set aside with all its natural consequences; and 2. The respondents may very kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner in the matter of regular selection of S.I., keeping in mind the qualifications/experience he is holding; 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner claims to be possessed of the requisite qualifications for being appointed appointed on the post of Sub Inspector. At the time of filing of the instant writ petition, he was working on the post of Teacher at the Government Secondary School, 90 RD (Khetawali) District Hanumangarh. A recruitment notification was published by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in the year 2007 for filling up the vacancies in the cadre of Sub Inspectors in the Police Department. The petitioner applied for appointment in the recruitment process. He participated in the written and physical tests and was declared successful. He received a interview call letter dated 9.2.2009 and was directed to appear for viva-voce test to be conducted by the Commission on 4.3.2009. After conducting viva-voce, a category-wise list of selected candidates was issued by the authorities for medical examination wherein the petitioner's name appeared at S.No. 106. The petitioner claims that having succeeded in clearing all the hurdles of the selection process, he was eagerly awaiting an appointment order but for a fairly long period of time, he did not receive any intimation. Upon this, he personally approached the authorities for clarification and was informed that the appointment order would be issued shortly. To his utter shock and surprise, the petitioner received an order dated 22.12.2009 informing him that upon character verification a criminal case u/Ss. 498A & 406 I.P.C. was reported to be pending against him and thus he was ineligible to be appointed on the post of Sub Inspector in view of the embargo contained in Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1989). The petitioner claims that the authorities acted in an absolutely arbitrary fashion and against the Rules of 1989 while denying him appointment despite clearing the selection process. The petitioner claims that the authorities acted in an absolutely arbitrary fashion and against the Rules of 1989 while denying him appointment despite clearing the selection process. The petitioner has further asserted that a totally false and frivolous case for the offences under Sections 406 and 498A I.P.C. was lodged against him by his wife wherein he was unjustly kept in custody for 48 hours and was suspended from service in the Education Department. Later on, he was reinstated. As per the petitioner, the case is totally false and is pending adjudication before competent court and till date no final verdict of guilt has been pronounced and therefore, he cannot be denied appointment on the strength of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1989. 3. The respondents have filed a reply to the writ petition wherein, it is averred that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed for in the writ petition in light of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Administration vs. Sushil reported in (1996) 11 SCC 605 . Reliance is also placed on a circular issued by the Director General of Police dated 23.3.2006 whereby it was ordained that candidates against whom challan had been filed in a criminal case would not be entitled for appointment in police service despite being acquitted. On the strength of said circular, the respondents have defended the action not to offer appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the reply wherein reliance is placed on a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. State & Ors. reported in 2009 WLC (UC) 71 and it is further stressed that the criminal case instituted against the petitioner was malafide and motivated. The petitioner thereafter filed in additional affidavit annexing therewith information received from the respondent department disclosing the names of a few other persons appointed in the police department despite pendency of criminal cases against them. 4. Mr. Sidhu, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that mere pendency of a criminal case could not have been utilized as a ground to deny appointment to the petitioner on the post of Sub Inspector. He relied on the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Khama Ram Vishnoi vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2000(2) WLC 702 = RLW 2000(2) Raj. He relied on the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Khama Ram Vishnoi vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2000(2) WLC 702 = RLW 2000(2) Raj. 959 and submitted that this Court after examining the Rules of 1989 laid down exhaustive guidelines for dealing with the cases of candidates facing criminal cases seeking appointments in the Police Department. He submitted that in the above case, it was held that even concealment by itself in the application form that the applicant was involved in the criminal case should not come in the way of the appointment of the candidate. He stressed that Rules 13 and 15 of the Rules of 1989 were exhaustively examined by this Court and it was held that conviction of a candidate only in cases of moral turpitude or violence could render him/her disentitled from seeking government employment. He stressed upon the guidelines laid down in para 29 of the judgment wherein it was held that there was no provision in the Rules of 1989 which debars from employment in police service such person who is found involved in a criminal case. He further relied upon the judgments rendered in the cases of Ashu Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2009 WLC (Raj.) UC 71, Kunj Behari Meena vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2010(2) RLW 1082 (Raj.), Brijendra Singh Meena vs. State of Rajasthan 1998 (2) WLC (Raj.) 456 = RLW 1998(2) Raj. 1107, Mukesh Kr. Arvind vs. State & Anr. being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11643/2008 decided on 17.12.2008, Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 in support of his contentions and urged that writ petition deserves acceptance and the petitioner is entitled to be offered appointment on the post of Sub Inspector of Police in the questioned selection process. 5. Per contra Mr. Anil Bissa, learned AGC urged that the police services are disciplined forces and as such, the action of the respondents in denying appointment to the petitioner on account of pendency of a criminal case against him cannot be treated to be unjust or illegal. 5. Per contra Mr. Anil Bissa, learned AGC urged that the police services are disciplined forces and as such, the action of the respondents in denying appointment to the petitioner on account of pendency of a criminal case against him cannot be treated to be unjust or illegal. He contends that the fact regarding the registration of the criminal case against the petitioner came to be revealed during police verification whereafter, the authorities relying on Rule 13 and Director General's Circular dated 23.2.2006 took a conscious decision not to offer appointment to the petitioner. He vehemently defended the decision taken by the respondent-authorities as communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 22.12.2009 not to appoint him as Sub Inspector in the questioned selection process owing to the registration of the criminal case against him. He relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Parvez Khan reported in AIR 2014 SC 3403 and urged that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the instant writ petition. 6. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 7. The factual matrix is undisputed that the petitioner was facing a criminal case for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC at the time when he applied for appointment in the questioned selection process. He was selected on the basis of his merit and performance. Thus, the only question which arises for this Court's consideration is as to whether the action of the respondents in denying appointment to the petitioner on the strength of mere pendency of a criminal case for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC can be held to be lawful or not. In order to fortify his claim, the petitioner has placed on record certain documents procured from the respondent Police Department under the R.T.I. Act to canvass that other candidates were offered appointment by the department despite pendency of criminal cases against them and thus, the petitioner also deserves to be considered for appointment on parity. The petitioner claims that as per information dated 28.12.2010, it is revealed that candidates named therein, despite facing trial for the offences involving moral turpitude were given appointment. The relevant details are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- S. No. Name of candidate Tried/Convicted for the offences 1. The petitioner claims that as per information dated 28.12.2010, it is revealed that candidates named therein, despite facing trial for the offences involving moral turpitude were given appointment. The relevant details are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- S. No. Name of candidate Tried/Convicted for the offences 1. Dashrath Singh A. One involving the offence under Section 307, 302, 427, 323, 452 and 448 IPC B. other involving the offences under sections 447, 323, 325 and 34 IPC 2. Suresh Chand Involving offences u/Sec. 341 and 323 IPC. 3. Ghewar Singh Convicted for the offence under Section 342, 307, 327 & 323 IPC. 4. Chandra Prakash Yadav A. One for the offence under Sections 341 & 323 IPC & 3(x) of the SC/ST Act B. Another case for the offence u/S. 341 and 323 IPC 5. Hanumana Ram For the offence u/S. 323 & 341 IPC 8. In the above, list, it is reflected that a candidate named Dashrath Singh was facing trial for two cases; one involving the offence under Section 307, 302, 427, 323, 452 and 448 IPC and the other involving the offences under Sections 447, 323, 325 and 34 IPC; a candidate named Suresh Chand was found involved in a case involving offences under Section 341 and 323 IPC; a candidate named Ghewar Singh @ Ghewarchand was convicted in a case registered for the offences under Section 342, 307, 327 & 323 IPC; a candidate named Chandra Prakash Yadav was facing trial for the offence under Sections 341 and 323 IPC & Section 3(x) of the SC/ST Act and another case involving offence under Section 341 and 323 IPC, and a candidate named Hanumana Ram was facing trial for the offence under Section 323 and 341 IPC when they sought appointment. 9. As per the department's note-sheet placed on record by the petitioner himself, all these candidates had not been given appointment and their cases were deferred. Another communication dated 6.9.2000 has also been placed on record by the petitioner reflecting that two persons namely, Sarva Shri Amra Ram Khokhar and Ganga Ram were recommended for appointment because criminal cases pending against them were culminated on the strength of compromise and thereafter they were appointed as Sub Inspectors by order dated 27.9.2000. Another communication dated 6.9.2000 has also been placed on record by the petitioner reflecting that two persons namely, Sarva Shri Amra Ram Khokhar and Ganga Ram were recommended for appointment because criminal cases pending against them were culminated on the strength of compromise and thereafter they were appointed as Sub Inspectors by order dated 27.9.2000. Another communication dated 11.1.2001 has been placed on record which shown that Sarva Shri Chandra Prakash Yadav, Ghewar Singh, Suresh Chand and Hanumana Ramwere given appointment as Sub Inspectors on probation basis. However, the order itself reads that the appointment would be subject to character verification and physical test. As per the note-sheet referred to supra, the cases of the above-named persons were deferred for appointment on the ground of pendency of criminal cases against them during character verification. Another note-sheet dated 5.1.2001 has been placed on record which reflects that the authorities took a decision to appoint Suresh Chand, Chandra Prakash and Hanumanaram as they were subsequently acquitted of the offences with which they were charged and Ghewar Singh @ Ghewar Chand was considered fit for appointment because he was convicted for petty offences under Sections 341 and 323 IPC but was given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. He was given appointment considering the effect of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 10. Thus, the petitioner definitely has been able to make out a case that other persons though faced with criminal cases and some even after being convicted were appointed in the police department. 11. Thus, it is to be considered as to whether despite pendency of a criminal case under Sections 498A and 406 IPC the petitioner is entitled for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector in the Police Department. The criminal case which is pending against the petitioner was registered as a consequence of matrimonial discord between the petitioner and his wife. The trial of the case is pending and the competent court is yet to decide on the question of guilt or otherwise of the petitioner. Rules 13 & 15 of the Rules of 1989 are reproduced as below:- "13. Character:- The Character of a candidate for direct recruitment must be such as to qualify him for employment in the Service. The trial of the case is pending and the competent court is yet to decide on the question of guilt or otherwise of the petitioner. Rules 13 & 15 of the Rules of 1989 are reproduced as below:- "13. Character:- The Character of a candidate for direct recruitment must be such as to qualify him for employment in the Service. He must produce a certificate of good character from the Principal Academic Officer of the University or College or School in which he was last educated and two such certificates, written not more than six months prior to the date of application, from two responsible persons not connected with his School or College or University and not related to him. 15. Employment of Irregular or Improper Means:- A candidate who is or has been declared by the Recruitment Board/Commission or the Appointing Authority guilty of impersonation or of submitting fabricated documents, which have been tempered with or suppressing material information or of using or attempting to use unfair means in the examination or interview or otherwise resorting to any other irregular or improper means for obtaining admission to the examination or interview may, in addition to rendering himself liable to criminal prosecution be debarred either permanently or for a specified period:- (a) by the Recruitment Board/Commission or the Appointing Authority for admission to any examination or appearance at any interview to be held under the provisions of these Rules, and (b) by Government from employment under the Government." 12. In the case of Khama Ram Vishnoi vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) the learned Single Bench of this Court considered the import of the above Rules and held as under:- "Combined look at Rules 13 and 15 demonstrates that conviction of a candidate in a case involving moral turpitude and violence has a material bearing with his appointment in the police service and if the candidate is found guilty of suppressing such material information he may in addition to rendering liable himself to criminal prosecution may be debarred from employment under the Government. In view of Note (1) of Rule 13 information which relates to the conviction of a candidate can be termed as `material information'. Information relating to involvement in a criminal case or pendency of criminal case at the date of the application in my considered opinion is hardly relevant. In view of Note (1) of Rule 13 information which relates to the conviction of a candidate can be termed as `material information'. Information relating to involvement in a criminal case or pendency of criminal case at the date of the application in my considered opinion is hardly relevant. If such information is suppressed it does not amount to suppression of `material information'. There is no provision in the Rules of 1989 which debars the candidates who was involved in a criminal case or against whom a criminal case is pending, from the employment in police service. Circular issued by the Director General of Police on April 29, 1995 is relevant only to the extent in so far as it explains `moral turpitude' and `violence' and not beyond that." 13. The facts noticed by the Court in the matter of Khama Ram (supra) reveal that there was concealment of the fact regarding pendency of criminal case. In the case at hand, the petitioner, while seeking appointment disclosed the factum regarding pendency of criminal case against him and thereupon the authorities proceeded to pass the order dated 22.12.2009, ousting the petitioner from the selection process on account of the pendency of the above criminal case. It cannot be gainsaid that the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC are not ones involving moral turpitude. 14. In the case of Ashu Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), this Court held that merely because a person is facing trial in a case involving offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, he cannot be treated disqualified from being appointed in government service. Similar view was expressed by this Court in the cases of Kunj Behari Meena vs. State of Rajasthan, Brijendra Singh Meena vs. State of Rajasthan, Mukesh Kr. Arvind vs. State & Anr., Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi (supra). 15. Viewed in light of the above factual scenario, it is evident that the Rules do not pose any hurdle against the petitioner's right to be appointed in the police services. At best, a rider can be imposed in the petitioner's appointment order that in the event of conviction in the above criminal case, he may be liable to be terminated from service without holding an enquiry and an undertaking in this regard can be procured from him in this regard. 16. At best, a rider can be imposed in the petitioner's appointment order that in the event of conviction in the above criminal case, he may be liable to be terminated from service without holding an enquiry and an undertaking in this regard can be procured from him in this regard. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner on the post of Sub Inspector of Police in the questioned selection process ignoring the pendency of above criminal case against the petitioner. However, the appointment order shall bear a condition that the petitioner's services may be terminated in the event of his conviction and he shall also submit an undertaking to this effect before joining the post. Since the petitioner was gainfully employed as Teacher during the intervening period, he is not entitled to any consequential benefits. However, the respondents shall grant him all notional service benefits from the date of the order Annx. 6 dated 22.12.2009. 17. No order as to costs.