SANDEEP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 2504-LPA of 2019 Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 559 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1129 of 2019 (O&M) This intra-court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.10.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein and subsequent order dated 06.05.2019 dismissing the application filed for review of the order dated 09.10.2017.

(2.) Undisputed facts required to be noticed for proper adjudication of the controversy are limited. In pursuance to an advertisement issued by the Haryana Government in the year 2015, applications for appointment on the post of Constables were invited. The appellant-petitioner was an applicant along with others for the post of Constable General Duty in reserve category being schedule caste. He was selected and accordingly was allotted Belt No. 1/346 Ist BN Ambala City. Subsequently, vide order dated 28.07.2017 he was denied appointment as he failed to disclose the information in his verification and attestation form regarding pendency of a criminal case at the said point of time. Accordingly on account of non- disclosure of such information, he was held to be disqualified out-rightly under Rule 12.18(2) of the Punjab Police (Haryana Amendment) Rules, 2015.

(3.) The appellant-petitioner made representations to various authorities including Director General of Police but when no action was taken he approached this Court by filing writ petition out of which the present appeal arises challenging the action of cancellation of his appointment. Learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 09.10.2017 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that he falsely declared in his application form that there was no criminal case pending against him when admittedly there was an FIR registered against him and a criminal trial was pending. Learned Single Judge further held that merely because he was subsequently acquitted at the time of selection and appointment was of no consequence as the cancellation of appointment was a result of false information disclosed in the verification and attestation form. Subsequently, a review application was filed placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar 2011(4) SCC 644, and various other judgments of the learned Single Judge of this Court based on the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar's (supra). It is also submitted that since the appellant-petitioner was acquitted subsequently from the charges and there was no proceedings pending against him on the date of appointment and the alleged offences in which he is said to be involved were minor offences under sections 323, 325 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code without involving of any question of moral turpitude, non disclosure was not intentional and non-disclosure of the information would not be fatal because of subsequent acquittal. It is also submitted that the appellant could not have been discharged from service without even affording an opportunity of hearing.