Bablu Chauhan Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Bablu Chauhan Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, though placed in the select list for the post of Constable, could be denied appointment on account of his antecedents, namely three FIRs registered after selection ending in benefit-of-doubt acquittals. +2 more

Court's answer

The post of Constable is a responsible post for which a person of immaculate character ought to be appointed; registration of criminal cases after selection shows the individual indulged in criminal activities knowing of his impending appointment, and such a person cannot be said to be fit or suitable for the post.

Ratio / Principle

The facts of Joginder Singh (Supra) are distinguishable: there the candidate stood honourably acquitted before the interview/medical examination in a case arising from a family feud, whereas here the appellant was given benefit of doubt owing to hostile witnesses in three FIRs registered after selection; the law has to be applied on the facts of each case individually.

Key takeaways

While selection is done by the selecting body, the appointing authority must assess the individual's suitability even after selection; where his antecedents are of a nature detrimental to appointment on the post, a decision can be taken to deny him the appointment.ratio¶¶26
Offences of the nature under Section 392 of the IPC, for which the appellant was alleged to have committed offences, amount to offences involving moral turpitude.ratio¶¶31
The decision of the authorities as noticed by the learned Single Bench, taken at the level of the Director General of Police, Haryana, cannot be said to be wrongful or illegal.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

LPA-1455-2018 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 6 May 2025 (oral judgment authored by Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.; Meenakshi I. Mehta, J. on the Bench): Letters Patent Appeal against the Single Bench judgment dated 13.08.2018 dismissing CWP-23611-2012 is dismissed. Appellant Bablu Chauhan, placed in the select list for the post of Constable (advertisement 01.09.2008; physical test cleared 21.05.2010; interview 23.06.2011), was denied the constabulary number after three FIRs registered before appointment (FIR Nos. 190, 178 and 191 of November 2010; Sections 392/34, 392/394 IPC; Sections 25, 25/54 Arms Act, 1959), in which he was acquitted only on benefit of doubt as material witnesses turned hostile. Held: (i) Joginder Singh v. U.T. of Chandigarh and Others, 2015(2) SCC 377 relied on by the appellant is distinguishable — there the acquittal was honourable and preceded the interview, whereas here the acquittal was on benefit of doubt; the law has to be applied on the facts of each case individually; (ii) the post of Constable is a responsible post requiring immaculate character, and a person in whom criminal cases are registered after selection, evidencing criminal activity indulged in despite knowledge of impending appointment, is not fit or suitable; (iii) even after selection, the appointing authority may deny appointment where antecedents are detrimental; (iv) offences under Section 392 IPC amount to offences involving moral turpitude; (v) the rejection decision at the level of the Director General of Police, Haryana, noticed by the learned Single Bench, is not wrongful or illegal. All pending applications disposed of accordingly.

224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

LPA-1455-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision:6^th of May, 2025

..…...Appellant(s)

BABLU CHAUHAN ..…...Appellant(s) V/s. STATE OF HA RYANA AND OTHERS .....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Present M r. Ravinder Rana, Advocate, f o r the appellant.

M r. Saurabh Mohunta, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)

1. T he challenge in the present L PA is to the judgment dated 13.08.2018 p a ssed by the learned Single Be n ch whereby the Writ Petition i.e. CWP-23 6 11-2012, preferred by the a p pellant, has been dismissed holding as under:-

“4. It was clarified that t he candidates acquitted on technical grounds in offences involving moral turpitude should also not be considered f o r appointment. The case of the petitioner was re-consider e d vide order dated 17th June, 2013 (Annex. R-III). The officer opined that the petitioner was involved in cases for offences under Section 392 IPC (Robbery) thrice and w as acquitted by the court every time by giving benefit of d oubt. It is mentioned that the petitioner has serious c a ses of property offences against him and seems to be a r epeat offender. It was thus not desirable to have such a pe rs on in the police force and therefore, his claim for allotme n t of constabulary number for the post of Constable was rej e cted by the respondents.”

Suresh Kumar 2025.05.12 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

LPA-1455-2018 (O&M)

Page 2 of 4

2. L earned counsel for the appell a nt has relied on the judgment passed by t h e Hon’ble Supreme Court in Joginder Singh Vs. U.T. of Chandigarh and Others ; 2015(2) SCC 377 to submit that in the said case also where th e post in question was that of C o nstable, a person was allowed to be appointed after he had been acquitted i n the criminal case registered against him w herein he was an accused.

3. W e have carefully considered t he judgment relied on by the appellant passed in Joginder Singh (Supra) and with all humility at our command, w e find that the facts of the said case are distinguishable from the facts whi c h have come out in the present c ase.

4. I n the case before the Hon’ble S upreme Court, the appellantJoginder Sin g h was a person who had applie d for the post of Constable, but much before he was called for the intervie w /medical examination, he was acquitted in a criminal case registered again s t him on account of a family feud. The a cquittal was an honorable acquittal and in the said circumstance s , the Apex Court held denying h im appointment to the post of Constable w o uld be akin to vicarious punishment which is not permissible in law and allowed the Appeal.

5. I n the present case, the facts are that the selection process was initiated vide advertisement dated 01.09.200 8 and the appellant had cleared the physical test on 21.05.2010 and was call e d for interview on 23.06.2011, wherein he was placed in the select list. Befo r e he could be appointed, three FIRs were re g istered against him which are a s under:-

Suresh Kumar 2025.05.12 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

LPA-1455-2018 (O&M)

Page 3 of 4

1 . FIR No.190 dated 16.11.2 0 10 registered under Sections 392/34 IPC, 25/54 of the A rms Act, 1959, Police Station Chhappar (Yamunanagar).

2 . FIR No.178 dated 23.11.2 0 10 registered under Sections 392/394 IPC, Police Statio n Barara.

3 . FIR No.191 dated 25.11.2 0 10 registered under Sections 392/34 IPC, 25 of the Ar m s Act, 1959, Police Station Chhappar (Yamunanagar).

6. O n account of material witnesse s having turned hostile, he was given benefit of doubt in the criminal trial and was acquitted of the said charges. Thu s , we find that the facts of the p resent case being completely different fro m that of Joginder Singh (Supra) . The law, thus, has to be applied on fa c ts of the case individually.

7. T he post of Constable is a resp o nsible post on which a person having imma c ulate character ought to be ap p ointed. If criminal cases have been register e d after selection, it is apparen t that the concerned individual has indulged into criminal activities after h e knew that he is going to be appointed as a Constable. Such person, there f ore, cannot be said to be fit or suitable for t h e post. While selection may be d one by the selecting body, the appointing a u thority has to see the suitabilit y of that individual, even after selection, if his antecedents are found to be o f such a nature which would be detrimental t o his appointment on a post, a d ecision can be taken to deny him the appo i ntment.

8. S uch a decision of the authori t ies as noticed by the learned Single Bench at the level of the Director Ge n eral of Police, Haryana cannot said to be wr o ngful or illegal. Offences of t h e nature under Section 392 of

Suresh Kumar 2025.05.12 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

LPA-1455-2018 (O&M)

Page 4 of 4

the IPC for w hich he was alleged to have c o mmitted, amount the offences involving mo r al turpitude.

9. I n view thereto, we do not find any reason to differ from the impugned ju d gment passed by the learned S ingh Bench and the appeal is dismissed , rejecting the prayer of the appella n t. 10. A ll pending applications in this case are disposed of

accordingly.

[SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

[MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA] JUDGE

May 6, 2025

Ess Kay

W hether speaking / reasoned : Yes / No W hether Reportable : Yes / No

Suresh Kumar 2025.05.12 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document