PRADEEP SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the letter/order dated 16.11.2011 issued by respondent No.4, whereby the offer to him of provisional appointment to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI)/Exe in CISF was withdrawn. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents for conducting his basic training for the said post as well as for fixation of his seniority to just below the person who was immediately above him in the select list as was declared selected for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) in the examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) in the year 2010.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that being eligible and having qualified the examination conducted by the SSC in the year 2010 for the post of ASI/Exe in CISF, he was issued a letter on 28.09.2011, which provisionally appointed him to the post of ASI/Executive in CISF and he was directed to report to the Deputy Inspector General/Principal, CISF, RTC, Arakkonam, Post Suraksha Campus, Distt. Vellore, Tamil Nadu on 12.11.2011 for basic training which was to commence from 14.11.2011. The petitioner was also directed to produce necessary documents. In compliance of the requirements of the aforesaid letter, the petitioner appeared on 12.11.2011 and submitted all the relevant documents along with his Character Certificate and a copy of the court order/judgment dated 09.04.2003 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Jhajjar in Sessions Case No. 156/19.04.1999/14.12.2002 whereby he was acquitted of the charges for offences punishable under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, vide the impugned order/letter dated 16.11.2011, the petitioner's provisional offer of appointment was withdrawn since the petitioner had answered "Yes" in Column No.04 of the Questionnaire Form which pertained to whether any FIR had been lodged against him in the past and also because the petitioner had not forwarded the details in advance.

(3.) The petitioner has assailed the said letter/order on the ground that having been acquitted of the charges framed against him in the said criminal case, there was no cause/occasion for withdrawal of his appointment; that there was no independent material before the Appointing Authority apart from the FIR and the judgment to ascertain the antecedents of the petitioner which otherwise stood sincerely redeemed because of his acquittal in the said criminal case. It is further submitted that no show cause notice was issued to him before cancellation of his provisional offer of appointment. It is also submitted that the criminal case was prosecuted on the allegation that the petitioner had married the sister of the complainant therein; that after marriage, the petitioner demanded a scooter and some cash and caused harassment to his wife and stated that unless his demand is fulfilled, he would not allow her to live in her matrimonial house comfortably; that a Panchayat took place and the complainant assured the petitioner that he would arrange for a scooter by Diwali; that the petitioner and his family members kept peace for sometime but once again started taunting and harassing the complainant's sister; that finally, on 03.10.1998, the complainant came to know that his sister had been murdered by the petitioner and his family members; that however, after trial, the Court held that "all the witnesses who are close relatives of the deceased examined by the Public Prosecutor failed to support the prosecution case, so the Public Prosecutor closed his evidence as the remaining witnesses being of formal in nature were unable to improve the prosecution case. As no evidence could come on record against the accused connecting them with the crime, so their examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was dispensed with. As no evidence could come on record for connecting them with the crime, so the accused are hereby acquitted." Accordingly, all the accused persons including the petitioner were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.