HARBANS SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case presents a point of view and the decision swings between whether the petitioner should be appointed as Constable or denied the consideration. The petitioner competed for the post of Constable applying under a public advertisement calling applications from eligible candidates to serve the police department in District Police Cadre, Mansa.

(2.) In the aftermath of the recruitment process and at the stage of background check/character verification it was discovered that the petitioner was involved in FIR No.4 dated January 02, 2008 registered in Police Station Jhunir under section 13-A of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 ("1867 Act"). The charge was that he was found indulging in darra satta by staking money on digits. The petitioner had pleaded guilty voluntarily and without pressure. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh held him guilty under section 13-A of the Act and convicted him on January 10, 2008 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.200/-. The money recovered from the possession of the accused convict stood forfeited to the State by an order of the Magistrate of even date. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa sought advice from the Director General of Police, Punjab on June 07, 2012 whether the petitioner should be allowed to join on the post of Constable. The decision was pending and no action was taken.

(3.) The petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No.19539 of 2012 which was disposed of on October 01, 2012 directing respondent No.2 to take a final decision as regards the claim of the petitioner for his appointment/joining on the post of Constable. The consideration was to take place within a period of eight weeks' from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. In compliance of the orders passed by this Court, the Additional Director General of Police Administration, Punjab, Chandigarh has passed the impugned order dated December 18, 2012 and the claim has been rejected citing the law in Delhi Administration vs. Sushil Kumar, 1996 11 SCC 605 . The relevant para from the judgment of the Supreme Court reproduced in the impugned order reads:-