RAMJI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to challenge the order whereby his services from the post of Constable stands terminated by the respondent-State by invoking Rule 12.18 of the Punjab Police (Haryana Amendment ) Rules, 2015.

(2.) Facts in brief are that on 16.04.2018, Haryana Staff Selection Commission advertised 5000 posts of Male Constable (General Duty) along with several other posts. As per advertisement, the selection process consists of Physical Screening Test, Knowledge Test, and Physical Measurement Test. Thereafter, the interview and the personality test were to be held of the candidates and on the basis of their combined merit scores, appointments were to be made. Being fully eligible, the petitioner applied for the above said post under Category No.1 for the post of Male Constable (General Duty). On the basis of interview-cum-personality test, Physical Screening Test, Knowledge Test & Physical Measurement Test, the petitioner was declared successful in the General Category and he was called for filling up the character verification form in which he duly mentioned that he was involved in FIR No. 299 Dated 01.06.2016 Under Section 12 Of The POSCO Act, 2012 which was registered at Police Station Samana, and he stood acquitted in the said FIR. His candidature was rejected during the process of character verification on the ground that he had been involved in a FIR involving moral turpitude and vide Rule 12.18 (3) (e) of the Punjab Police (Haryana Amendment) Rules, 2015 (Rule 2015 for short) he could not be considered for appointment. The rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. S.K Nehra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein challenges the impugned order on the ground that he had disclosed his involvement in FIR No. 299 Dated 01.06.2016 under Section 12 of The POSCO Act, 2012. It is contended that there is no concealment on his behalf, while further contending that he stood acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat as far back as 17.3.2017 much prior to the issuance of the advertisement. It is further argued that he could not have been removed under Rule 12.18 (3) (e) of Rules 2015 as the petitioner was acquitted. Further reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner on a judgement of Supreme Court in Avtar Singh versus Union of India, 2016 3 SCT 672 to argue that mere involvement in some petty case would not render a person unsuitable for a job. Counsel also places reliance upon Rajesh vs Union Of India, 2016 4 SCT 364 to argue that High Court has held termination is arbitrary even in those cases where there was non-disclosure/ concealment of criminal cases.