LAWS(P&H)-2013-8-354

PRITAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Decided On August 01, 2013
PRITAM SINGH Appellant
V/S
State Of Haryana And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was selected as a Constable (GD) in Haryana Police in a recruitment process initiated in the year 2008. He was interviewed in July, 2011. He was placed at Serial No. 107 of the merit list of selected candidates. Others were enlisted to service and joined the constabulary. The petitioner was not offered belt number. The petitioner served a legal notice on 25.4.2012. An order dated 14.5.2012 (P -27) was passed by the Commandant, 3rd Battalion, HAP, Hisar. It was admitted that the petitioner was selected by the Selection Board, Jind for posting as constable and was allotted to the Battalion. He was found fit on medical examination held on 17.3.2012. In the process of verification of antecedents, the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak informed the Department vide letter dated 20.3.2012 that a criminal case FIR No. 323 dated 2.11.2006 was registered against the petitioner for rape etc. under Sections 376, 511, 363, 323, 34 IPC, PS Sadar, Rohtak, District Rohtak and that the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide judgment dated 14.12.2007 had acquitted him of the charges. It was opined that acquittal in a criminal case involving mortal turpitude does not entitle a candidate to be appointed in Government service. The Commandant, 3rd Battalion, HAP, Hisar found that the acquittal was secured as the witnesses turned hostile. The Assistant District Attorney, on an opinion sought, had referred to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Delhi Administration v. Susheel Kumar, in which, it was opined that mere acquittal in a criminal case does not entitle a candidate to be appointed in Government service. The appointment was not offered in public interest. The action was upheld. It is well settled that mere selection does not give an indefeasible right to appointment. The Government is well within its right to withhold appointment on a lingering doubt as to the moral standards of a candidate who aspires appointment in the uniformed police force. In taking such a decision, no stigma is cast; no moral judgment is involved; suspicion alone is sufficient to deny appointment to a job which requires the protection of life and liberty of citizens by the police.

(2.) THE defence of the State in response to this petition based on instructions of the Director General of Police, Haryana issued vide memo dated 2.7.2007 (R -3) and 13.11.2007 (R -4) which are salutary inasmuch they restrict entry of candidates charged during a trial with offences involving moral turpitude but acquitted merely on technical grounds or on account of giving benefit of doubt may not be considered for employment as constables. The purpose and object behind the aforesaid Notifications and directions was to restrict the entry of persons of criminal background involving heinous crime and offence bearing on moral turpitude. There is no place for such people in the disciplined force. I do not find any merit in this case and have no hesitation in dismissing this petition after hearing Mr. R.K. Gupta learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, for the State.