DEEPA TOMAR 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 18.11.2011 issued by respondent No.4, whereby the offer to her of provisional appointment to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI)/Exe in CISF was withdrawn.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 her basic training for the said post as well as for fixation of her seniority to just below the person who was immediately above her 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, she was issued a letter on 25.10.2011, which provisionally appointed her to the post of ASI/Executive in CISF and she 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 her Character Certificate and a copy of the court order/judgment dated 04.04.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fifth Baghpat in Sessions Examination 327/2008 whereby she was acquitted of the charges for offences punishable under Sections 364, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, vide the impugned order/letter dated 18.11.2011, the petitioner's provisional offer of appointment was withdrawn since the petitioner had answered "Yes" in Column No.04 of the Questionnaire Form which pertained to whether any FIR had been lodged against her in the past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 her in the said criminal case, there was no cause/occasion for withdrawal of her 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 her acquittal in the said criminal case. It is further submitted that no show cause notice was issued to her before cancellation of her provisional offer of appointment. It is also submitted that the criminal case was prosecuted on the allegation that the petitioner had got her own husband kidnapped and killed as she was in love with someone else; that however, after trial, the Court held that "no strong evidence presented on file in the aforesaid circumstances by the prosecution side which proves (sic) the allegation levied (sic) against the accused persons Satpal and Smt. Deepa under section 120-B, 364 IPC as(sic) beyond reasonable doubt. Accused persons are entitled to obtain the benefit of doubt. Accused persons Satpal and Smt. Deepa are liable to be acquitted for the charges levied (sic) against them." Accordingly, the accused persons including the petitioner were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.