RANJEET BISHNOI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the instant appeal, a challenge is made to the order impugned dtd. 10/4/2023, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant herein, was dismissed.

(2.) Concisely noted, the factual matrix of the instant appeal dictates that the respondent-State issued an advertisement in the Year 2018, inviting applications for recruitment on the post of Constable. Thereafter, the appellant participated in the said recruitment process and was duly selected on the concerned post. However, pursuant to the appellant's appointment, the fact of previous registration of an FIR and the consequential prosecution of the appellant, came into the knowledge of the respondentState, which was wilfully and admittedly concealed by the appellant at the time of recruitment. Therefore, as result, the appellant vide order 8/3/2019, was removed from service by the respondent-State. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10776/2021 titled as Ranjeet Bishnoi vs. State of Rajasthan. However, the said petition came to be dismissed vide order impugned dtd. 10/4/2023.

(3.) In this background, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order impugned dtd. 10/4/2023 is passed in contravention of the settled position of the law and therefore, warrants interference of this Court. It is submitted that vide order dtd. 8/3/2019, the appellant was removed from service, while serving on the post of Constable, on the ground of concealment and suppression of the fact of lodging of an FIR against the appellant and his arrest in that matter. However, subsequently, the appellant came to be discharged from all charges by the concerned court on 6/2/2021. Therefore, as the appellant was acquitted, the impugned actions of the respondent-State in relieving the appellant from service, were unjustified and dehors the provisions of the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1989. Lastly, whilst praying for the quashing of the order impugned, learned counsel submitted that a reformatory approach should be adopted by the Courts while dealing with alike matters, as a person cannot be held accountable for a miscalculated action undertaken in their youth, as to err is to be human.