Dismissed

Dhawal Singh v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC19 Sept 2022CW/14221/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging denial of Constable appointment due to criminal cases pending at the time of application. Court held acquittal on benefit of doubt was not a clean acquittal for disciplined forces, upholding Selection Committee's decision under Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; appointment not granted to petitioner.

Dhawal Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14221/2017

¶3

Dhawal Singh S/o Shri Sooraj Singh, Resident Of Village And Post Abhorra Tehsil Kumher District Bharatpur Rajasthan

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan

¶7

The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

The Superintendent Of Police Kota City, District Kota.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)

¶11

: Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya : Mr. P.S. Naruka on behalf of Mr. Rupin Kala, GC

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶13

Order

¶14

19/09/2022

¶15

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

¶16

following prayers:-

¶17

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that your lordships may kindly pleased to call for the entire record of the case, examine the same and allow the writ petition by passing an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

¶18

(I) To quash and set aside the order dated 06.06.2017 passed by the respondents and respondents may kindly be directed to give the appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable in pursuance of the advertisement dated 14.07.2013 with all the consequential benefits;

¶19

(ii) Any other order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and in the interest of justice."

¶20

(2 of 9)

¶21

[CW-14221/2017]

¶22

Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 14.07.2013, the petitioner applied for the post of Constable. During the Physical Efficiency Test/ Character Verification, the respondents found that two criminal cases No.655/2008 & 676/2008 for the offences under Section 392 & 328 of IPC was under trial against the petitioner and nothing was suppressed from the employer. Thereafter, the petitioner was acquitted both the cases in the aforesaid offences by giving benefit of doubt by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 01.12.2015. However, the petitioner has been denied appointment by the respondents vide order dated 09.10.2015 treating his acquittal being not a clean acquittal, which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been acquitted in both the cases by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 01.12.2015 and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for appointment on the post of Constable in pursuance to the advertisement dated 14.07.2013.

¶24

Counsel for the respondents submitted that during the Physical Efficiency Test/Character Verification, it found that two criminal cases two criminal cases No.655/2008 & 676/2008 for the offences under Section 392 & 328 of IPC was registered against the petitioner in which though the learned Trial Court acquitted the petitioner on the ground of benefit of doubt but the same is not a clean acquittal. Counsel further submits that it is for the Selection Committee to adjudge the suitability of the candidate, more particularly, for appointment in the Disciplined Security Forces and

¶25

(3 of 9) [CW-14221/2017]

¶26

looking to the conduct of the petitioner, he is not entitled for appointment in the Disciplined Security Forces.

¶27

Counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Love Kush Meena , reported in (2021) 8 SCC 774 where in paras-24, 25 & 28 it has been held as under :-

¶28

“24. Examining the controversy in the present case in the conspectus of the aforesaid legal position, what is important to note is the fact that the view of this Court has depended on the nature of offence charged and the result of the same. The mere fact of an acquittal would not suffice but rather it would depend on whether it is a clean acquittal based on total absence of evidence or in the criminal jurisprudence requiring the case to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, that parameter having not been met, benefit of doubt has been granted to the Accused. No doubt, in that facts of the present case, the person who ran the tractor over the deceased lady was one of the other co-Accused but the role assigned to the others including the Respondent herein was not of a mere bystander or being present at site. The attack with knives was alleged against all the other co-Accused including the Respondent.

¶29

We may also notice this is a clear case where the endeavour was to settle the dispute, albeit not with the job in mind. This is obvious from the recital in the judgment of the Trial Court that the compoundable offences were first compounded during trial but since the offence Under Section 302/34 IPC could not be compounded, the Trial Court continued and qua those offences the witnesses turned hostile. We are of the view that this can hardly fall under the category of a clean acquittal and the Judge was thus right in using the terminology of benefit of doubt in respect of such acquittal.

¶30

(4 of 9)

¶31

[CW-14221/2017]

¶32

We may note here that the circular dated 28.03.2017 is undoubtedly very wide in its application. It seeks to give the benefit to candidates including those acquitted by the Court by giving benefit of doubt. However, such circular has to be read in the context of the judicial pronouncements and when this Court has repeatedly opined that giving benefit of doubt would not entitle candidate for appointment, despite the circular, the impugned decision of the competent authority dated 23.05.2017 cannot be said to suffer from infirmity as being in violation of the circular when it is in conformity with the law laid down by this Court.”

¶33

Counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the

¶34

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Police Vs. Raj Kumar , reported in (2021) 8 SCC 347 where in paras-15, 16, 17, 31 & 32 it has been held as under :-

¶35

“15. This Court has, in the past, on several occasions, dealt with questions which are similar, if not entirely identical to what is involved in the present case, to wit, whether in the event of exoneration or acquittal of an applicant/candidate arrayed as Accused of various offences is a decisive factor for consideration of his or her suitability. Several judgments in the past had appeared to draw a distinction between "clean" acquittal of Accused individuals on the one hand and those acquitted or exonerated on account of benefit of doubt. Similarly, where candidates were charged with grave offences involving moral turpitude as well as larger outcomes were examined. Another area which engaged this Court's attention was the effect of nondisclosure of pending criminal cases. Matters came to a head when all these issues were referred to authoritative decision by a larger three judge Bench.

¶36

In Avtar Singh (supra), the three-judge bench, after detailed discussion of the various circumstances that arose when public authorities are called upon to deal with such cases, recorded its conclusions in the following manner:(SCC p.507,para-38)

¶37

(5 of 9)

¶38

[CW-14221/2017]

¶39

“38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus:

¶40

38.1 Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

¶41

38.2 While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.”

¶42

There are subsequent judgments too in this regard which have followed the ruling in Joginder Singh v. State (UT of Chandigarh: State UT of Chandigarh Vs. Pradeep Kumar & Anil Bhardwaj Vs. High Court of M.P., before proceeding to analyze the facts in each appeal, it would also be useful to reproduce the relevant extract of this Court's ruling in Mehar Singh (supra) where it was held as follows:(Mehar Singh case, SCC p.703, para-35)

¶43

“35.The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the society. People

¶44

(6 of 9)

¶45

[CW-14221/2017]

¶46

repose great faith and confidence in it. It must be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged in the criminal case, that acquittal or discharge order will have to be examined to see whether he has been completely exonerated in the case because even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In recent times, the image of the police force is tarnished. Instances of police personnel behaving in a wayward manner by misusing power are in public domain and are a matter of concern. The reputation of the police force has taken a beating. In such a situation, we would not like to dilute the importance and efficacy of a mechanism like the Screening Committee created by the Delhi Police to ensure that persons who are likely to erode its credibility do

¶47

(7 of 9)

¶48

[CW-14221/2017]

¶49

not enter the police force. At the same time, the Screening Committee must be alive to the importance of trust reposed in it and must treat all candidates with even hand.”

¶50

Public service-like any other, presupposes that the state employer has an element of latitude or choice on who should enter its service. Norms, based on principles, govern essential aspects such as qualification, experience, age, number of attempts permitted to a candidate, etc. These, broadly constitute eligibility conditions required of each candidate or applicant aspiring to enter public service. Judicial review, under the Constitution, is permissible to ensure that those norms are fair and reasonable, and applied fairly, in a non-discriminatory manner. However, suitability is entirely different; the autonomy or choice of the public employer, is greatest, as long as the process of decision making is neither illegal, unfair, or lacking in bona fides.

¶51

The High Court's approach, evident from its observations about the youth and age of the candidates, appears to hint at the general acceptability of behaviour which involves petty crime or misdemeanour. The impugned order indicates a broad view, that such misdemeanour should not be taken seriously, given the age of the youth and the rural setting. This Court is of opinion that such generalizations, leading to condonation of the offender's conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided. Certain types of offences, like molestation of women, or trespass and beating up, assault, causing hurt or grievous hurt, (with or without use of weapons), of victims, in rural settings, can also be indicative of caste or hierarchybased behaviour. Each case is to be scrutinized by the concerned public employer, through its designated officialsmore so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public

¶52

(8 of 9)

¶53

[CW-14221/2017]

¶54

confidence is a bulwark to society's security.”

¶55

I have heard counsels for the parties and perused the record and also gone through the judgments cited (supra).

¶56

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments in the matter of Commissioner of Police & State of Rajasthan Vs. Love Kush Meena (both supra) had an occasion to take into consideration what has been observed in Avtar Singh’s case & Mehar Singh (both supra) and made much emphasis on the point that while considering the candidature of a candidate, the employer has to examine very minutely and in its entirety the criminal antecedents against such candidate before offering appointment, in particular in the disciplined security forces and observed that the police force is a disciplined force and therefore shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the society and as the people repose great faith in the police force, therefore it must be worthy of that confidence.

¶57

In the light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Commissioner of Police and State of Rajasthan Vs. Love Kush Meena (both supra) , I am of the view that before the offer of appointment is made, the employer has to take into consideration and adjudge the suitability of a candidate as regards the criminal antecedents against the candidate and to be more specific in the disciplined security force and simultaneously it has also to be examined in case of acquittal whether its an honourable acquittal or based on giving benefit of doubt or in the circumstances the witnesses being turned hostile.

¶58

(9 of 9)

¶59

[CW-14221/2017]

¶60

The another important point to be kept in mind by the employer is to see whether the criminal case pertains to moral turpitude. The law on these points has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases some of which are referred to supra. Now what remains is where there is clean and honourable acquittal and the crime alleged against the candidate does not pertain to moral turpitude, the same may not come as a bar in seeking appointment but if the position is contrary, the candidate is not entitled for appointment, as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶61

In view of the above discussion, this writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed; for the reasons, firstly, though the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 01.12.2015 on the ground of benefit of doubt, but the same in my considered view is not a clean acquittal, secondly, the matter relates to the appointment in Disciplined Security Forces, therefore, the Selection Committee has not committed any illegality in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Constable, thirdly, in view of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Police and Vs. Raj Kumar and State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Love Kush Meena (both supra) , I am not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶62

Hence, the present writ petition stands dismissed.

¶63

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶64

Upendra Pratap Singh /22

Dhawal Singh v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhawal Singh v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maya W/O Manoj Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Subhash Chandra Balai S/O Shri Mool Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Mithlesh Kumari Vaishnav D/O Ashok Kumar Vaishnav Vs State of Rajasthan

Yashwant Singh S/O Dana Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sama Choudhary D/O Bhagat Ram Wife of Shyoraj Vs Rajeshwar Singh

Nirmla Devi W/O Late Shri Ramvilash Sharma Vs University of Rajasthan