ANIL THAKUR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner applied for the post of Sub Inspector in Himachal Pradesh Police. The said post was to be filled up through the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Board. The petitioner having qualified the written test, hence, he was on 8.5.2008 requested to appear for physical and efficiency test and on his having qualified the aforesaid test, he was asked to appear in the interview to be held on 22.08.2008. On his having successfully passed the viva voce conducted by the Interviewing Board, the result of the interview was declared and published in various newspapers on 29.8.2008. Accordingly, he was directed to appear along with original documents pertaining to recruitment on 16.9.2008. However on 15.11.2008, the petitioner received a memo stating that an FIR had been registered against him which was pending investigation and keeping in view the pendency of the FIR registered against him, he was apprised that his appointment was kept in abeyance. On 24.11.2008, the petitioner represented to the department. On 30.11.2008, on conclusion of the investigation by the Investigating Officer into the offences constituted in the FIR lodged against the petitioner a cancellation/closure report was filed before the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction. The Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction before whom the closure/cancellation report was filed by the Investigating Officer under orders rendered on 4.4.2009, accepted the cancellation/closure report. However only on 23.6.2009 an offer of appointment was given to the petitioner by the respondents which offer having come to be accepted by the petitioner, the latter was under appointment letter of 24.6.2009, appointed to the post for which he was selected. Thereafter the petitioner was sent for basic training course w.e.f. 18.1.2010. On 13.2.2013 a provisional seniority list was circulated wherein the name of the petitioner was reflected to be occurring at the apposite place, however, in it his date of appointment was proclaimed to be 24.6.2009. The petitioner had made a detailed representation to the Director General of Police and requested him to consider his date of appointment as 12.12.2008 on which date the other candidates selected alongwith him were issued appointment letter qua the post for which they have come to be selected. Since, the representation of the petitioner came to be rejected by the respondents, as such, he is aggrieved by the rejection of his representation and is constrained to institute the instant writ petition before this Court.

(2.) THE relief which the petitioner seeks from this Court is of quashing of the order comprised in Annexure P -15 of 18.12.2013 besides he prays that order comprised in Annexure P -5 of 15.11.2008 whereby the petitioner's appointment was kept in abeyance given the pendency of investigation in an FIR lodged against him be also quashed and set aside and he be declared to have been appointed as Sub Inspector w.e.f. 12.12.2008.

(3.) MOREOVER in a judgment reported in : 1993 Supp (3) SCC 49 in case titled as Jagtar Singh versus Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and others, the relevant paragraphs 3 and 4 whereof are extracted hereinafter, bring to the fore the factum of even the Hon'ble Apex Court on the strength of occurrence of a singular previous incident involving the appellant therein had held that, hence, any conclusion could not be drawn that the selected candidate or the aspirant was unfit for appointment in public service. Even though when there is reticence therein qua the magnitude or enormity of the incident involving him, it appears that the incident involving the appellant therein was a trifling incident not hinging upon immorality nor tantamounting to commission of an offence involving moral turpitude. Obviously, then it did not impinge upon the moral character of the appellant therein. If the above deduction is arriveable qua the fact of the Apex Court having not construed a trivial incident or a trifling incident not proclaiming the commission of an offence constituting moral depravity or tantamounting to an offence involving moral turpitude, to be not rendering the appellant therein to be unfit for public employment, as such, while applying the ratio of the above judgment and for the reasons recorded hereinafter this Court would be prodded to form an inference that the factum of involvement of the petitioner herein in offences constituted under Sections 147, 148, 451, 506(II), 379, IPC does not obviously proclaim the factum of his involvement in offences involving moral turpitude, nor also hence the provisions aforesaid constitute any offence, construable to be pronouncing upon the moral depravity of the petitioner, rather it being a trifling incident which occurred on the spur of the moment and which ultimately sequelled the institution of a closure report by the Investigating Officer before the criminal Court of Competent jurisdiction which ultimately came to be accepted, as such, its occurrence and pendency at the stage of selection of the petitioner herein for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector ought not to have acted as a deterrent against the petitioner then being offered appointment to the post against which he had come to be selected. Relevant paragraphs No. 3 and 4 of the judgment supra read as under: -