RIZWAN KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission.

(2.) The order dtd. 30/1/2023 passed by the learned Single Judge has been assailed on the ground that present is not a case where the appellant was finally convicted of the charges. It is submitted that even if it is admitted that at the time of police verification, the appellant suppressed the fact regarding institution and pendency of a criminal case registered against him, once there has been an acquittal, the appellant was entitled to be adjudged as suitable for appointment. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of EX-Const/DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar Versus Union of India & Others. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10499 of 2022), decided on 16/1/2023 has not been correctly appreciated by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Attention of the Court is also drawn to Circular dtd. 29/4/1995 by submitting that even in such a case, the department has a discretion, but here the discretion was exercised capriciously and arbitrarily.

(3.) Undisputed facts of the case are that the appellant had applied for appointment against the post in the disciplined force. It is also not in dispute that when a police verification was made and enquiry was made from the appellant, he suppressed the fact regarding institution and pendency of a criminal case registered against him. This fact was taken into consideration by the respondents while adjudging his suitability and it was decided not to grant appointment to the appellant.