RAVINDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dtd. 8/12/2017 whereby his appointment has been cancelled under Rule 12.18(4) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as made applicable to State of Haryana (in short 'PPR').

(2.) The petitioner pursuant to Advertisement No. 08/2015 applied for the post of Constable. He successfully cleared written test followed by physical measurement and screening test. He on 24/6/2017 as per Rule 12.18 of PPR filed verification-cum-attestation form. The respondent during verification of his credentials found that an FIR No. 91 dtd. 29/9/2013 under Ss. 420/120 IPC at P.S. East Shimla was registered against him. Police filed cancellation report which was duly accepted by trial court vide order dtd. 26/9/2014. The respondent constituted a committee to consider his suitability. The said committee recommended his name and he was issued an appointment letter dtd. 13/7/2017. The respondent by impugned order dtd. 8/12/2017 has cancelled his candidature on account of non-disclosure of aforesaid FIR in attestation form.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that aforesaid FIR was lodged against the petitioner along with other accused. The police after investigation filed cancellation report which was duly accepted by the trial Court on 26/9/2014. The advertisement was issued in 2015. He did not disclose factum of aforesaid FIR in the attestation form because there was no such column. FIR stood cancelled at the time of filing application form. A committee constituted by the department after noting the verification report issued him appointment letter. There was no concealment of facts on his part. The Supreme Court in Ravindra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2024) 5 SCC 264, while noticing its judgments in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 and Pawan Kumar v. Union of India and Anr., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 532, has held that Courts while adjudicating such matters should consider antecedents, nature of offence, timing of criminal case, overall judgment of acquittal, nature of query in application/verification form and socio-economic strata of the candidate before adjudicating claim of the candidate. The petitioner belongs to poor strata of the society and was not involved in a serious crime or crime involving moral turpitude. Court may take lenient view. Denial of job would be great injustice and prejudice to him.