SANDEEP 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 23.11.2013 issued by respondent No.4, whereby the offer to him of provisional appointment to the post of Sub Inspector/Exe in CISF was withdrawn.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 Sub Inspector in the examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) in the year 2012.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that being eligible and having qualified the examination conducted by the SSC in the year 2012 for the post of Sub Inspector/Exe for CISF, he was issued a letter on 30.06.2013, which provisionally appointed him to the post of Sub Inspector/Executive in CISF and he was directed to report to the Director, National Industrial Security Academy (NISA), Hakimpet, Hyderabad on 09.08.2013 along with certain certificates, forms and documents, duly complete in all respects and signed by the appropriate authority as prescribed. In compliance of the requirements of the aforesaid letter, the petitioner, in the interregnum, produced his Character Certificate along with other relevant documents as well as a copy of the court order/judgment dated 06.01.2011 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ganaur, Haryana whereby he was acquitted of the charges for offences punishable under Sections 323/325/452/506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, vide a letter dated 20.8.2013, the petitioner was directed not to report for his basic training since a decision concerning his candidature was still pending with the Standing Screening Committee. He was also asked to supply a legible copy of the aforesaid judgment of the Trial Court and he accordingly did so. Finally, vide the impugned letter/order dated 23.11.2013, his provisional appointment was withdrawn on the ground that he was not found suitable for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector/Exe in CISF as he had been previously involved in a criminal case.

(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 Standing Screening Committee (Commitee) apart from the FIR and the judgment to ascertain the antecedents 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 on 12.06.2006, at about 6.00 to 6.30 PM, there was altercation between the petitioner's father and the complainant when the complainant was irrigating his field; that it was alleged that the petitioner's father gave beatings to the complainant at the field and the complainant returned back to his house saying that he shall complain of the same to the police; that the complainant after reaching his house while sitting in the upper room, the petitioner's father along with his sons Wajir, the petitioner and his wife Roshni Devi reached there; that Roshni was having a Bita of Khassi Mogra, Wajir was having a country made pistol and Sandeep, the petitioner was having a Jelli; that the accused caught hold of the complainant as well as his wife and started giving beatings; that an amount of Rs.5000/-which was in the pocket of the complainant was also stolen; that the complainant started speaking loudly and then his neighbours Joginder and Birender came there who rescued him from the clutches of the accused; that however, after trial, the Court held that "the prosecution thus could not bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all the shadows of reasonable doubt. The ingredients of the Sections 323, 325, 452 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC remained unproved. The accused thus are clearly entitled for benefit of doubt as well as for acquittal." Accordingly, all the accused persons including the petitioner were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.