Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 94 (RAJ)

Chetan Ram S/o Phoola Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2024-01-15

KULDEEP MATHUR

body2024
ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents to provide appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable (driver) at Maharana Pratap Battalion RAC, Pratapgarh pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.05.2018 issued by the respondents. 2. The candidature of the petitioner after his passing all the stages of selection process has been cancelled vide order dated 05.03.2019 (Annex.4) on the count that he was involved in a criminal case wherein he was acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt. In other words, the acquittal of the petitioner in the said criminal case has not been considered to be an honourable acquittal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the action of the respondents in passing the impugned order dated 05.03.2019 (Annex.4), disentitling the petitioner for appointment against the advertised post, on account of his involvement in a criminal case, is not justified and on that count, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 4. Drawing attention of the court towards the order dated 19.11.2018 (Annex.5) passed by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, (Rajasthan) in Criminal Case No. 911/2012, learned counsel submitted that though the competent criminal court in its order dated 19.11.2018 has stated that the petitioner was acquitted of the charges by extending to him the benefit of doubt yet a complete and careful perusal of the order dated 19.11.2018 would show that there was not even an iota of evidence on the face of the record against the petitioner and thus, by all means the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case was honourable acquittal. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that the State Government has laid down guidelines wherein it has been specifically provided that merely because a candidate is having criminal antecedents, he will not be deprived of consideration for appointment. Learned counsel urged that before rejecting the candidature of a candidate on the ground of he having criminal antecedents, the respondents are required to carefully examine the circumstances regarding his involvement in the criminal case and acquittal therein. Learned counsel urged that before rejecting the candidature of a candidate on the ground of he having criminal antecedents, the respondents are required to carefully examine the circumstances regarding his involvement in the criminal case and acquittal therein. Had the respondents examined the case of the petitioner carefully, they would have reached to the conclusion that the petitioner was acquitted of the charges for want of evidence and therefore his acquittal in the criminal case was honourable acquittal only and thus the decision taken by the respondents vide order dated 05.03.2019 (Annex.4) denying appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable (driver) due to his involvement in a criminal case is not a correct decision. Learned counsel thus submitted that a direction may be issued to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable (driver) forthwith will all consequential benefits. 6. Reliance was placed on judgment dated 01.03.2017 passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Bhajna Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No. 6884/2008). 7. On the other hand, learned AAG appearing for the State contended that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case by the trial court giving him benefit of doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324/149, 326, 149 IPC as the prosecution witnesses had turned hostile. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner entered into a compromise with the prosecution witnesses for the offences punishable under Section 323/149, 447 IPC. Learned counsel submitted that a candidate to be recruited to the disciplined Police Force must be of an unimpeachable character and integrity. Attention of the court was drawn towards the circulars dated 28.03.2017 and 04.12.2019 issued by Police Department and Department of Personnel to contend that the candidates who have been found involved for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 IPC and have been acquitted by the Competent Criminal Court after facing criminal trial by giving benefit of doubt are ineligible for appointment on a Government post. 8. Learned AAG vehemently submitted that the circulars dated 28.03.2017 and 04.12.2019 are very clear, therefore the decision of the respondents in denying appointment to the petitioner as per the above Government circulars may not be interfered. 8. Learned AAG vehemently submitted that the circulars dated 28.03.2017 and 04.12.2019 are very clear, therefore the decision of the respondents in denying appointment to the petitioner as per the above Government circulars may not be interfered. Reliance was placed on the judgment/order dated 28.01.2022 passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Leela Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan, SBCWP No. 515/2022 and the order dated 24.03.2021 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Love Kush Meena, (2021) 8 SCC 774 . 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the decision rendered in the case of Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vs. Pradeep Kumar, (2018) 1 SCC 797 , pleased to held as under: “.......13. It is thus well settled that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle him for appointment to the post. Still it is open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examining whether he is suitable for appointment to the post. From the observations of this Court in Mehar Singh and Parvez Khan cases, it is clear that a candidate to be recruited to the police service must be of impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was honourably acquitted/completely exonerated. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is shown to be mala-fide. The Screening Committee also must be alive to the importance of the trust repose in it and must examine the candidate with utmost character. 14.............” 11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was tried by a Competent Criminal Court for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 323/149, 447 IPC. This court having carefully gone through the record of the case, finds that a compromise has taken place between acquitted persons and the complainants while the trial was pending before the competent criminal court, consequently for the offences punishable under Sections 323/149 and 447 IPC. Thus, clearly the persons involved in a criminal case have been acquitted on the basis of a compromise. Thus, clearly the persons involved in a criminal case have been acquitted on the basis of a compromise. It appears to this court that in furtherance of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case before the competent criminal court and turned hostile. 12. True it is, that no sharp weapon was recovered by the Investigating Agency at the instance of the accused persons, however still there exists evidence on record indicating that a fight with ‘kicks and fists’ took place between the parties. The circulars dated 28.03.2017 and 04.12.2019 provide complete autonomy to the employer to examine each and every case of the candidates involved in criminal cases and decide their suitability for appointment against the advertised posts, after taking into consideration the reasoning for their acquittal, given so by the competent criminal court. 13. In a catena of judgments this Court and Hon’ble Apex Court has emphasized the importance of high standards of ‘conduct’ in case of recruitment and consequent duties in police forces. In the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra) it has been held that a decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala-fide. In the present case, nothing has been brought on record indicating that the impugned order dated 05.03.2019 (Annex.4) is mala-fide. 14. In the considered opinion of this court since a bare perusal of the order dated 19.11.2018 (Annex.5) passed by the competent criminal court reveals that prior to the decision, the parties had entered into a compromise, therefore the present case does not fall into the category of those cases wherein it could be inferred that the acquittal of the petitioner by the competent criminal court was honourable acquittal. 15. In view of above discussion the present writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.