Civil Writ Petition No. 17248 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 17248 of 2010 Date of decision:-18.7.2011 Gurjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Kailash Chander, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Puneet Gupta, Addl.A.G. Punjab. RITU BAHRI J. Petitioner is seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for appointment under compassionate ground vide circular No.11/27/94- 2PPA/2364 dated 05.2.1996. The petitioner helped the Punjab Police during the period of terrorism by providing information to the police regarding hideouts of terrorists. On 10.3.1993 he made request of Arms and Ammunitions to defend himself and his family. On 5.2.1996 he approached the Director General of Police, Chandigarh for enlistment of as Constable. His name was recommended by the Secretary, Relief and Re-settlement, Chandigarh for appointment vide Annexure P-3 dated 09.12.1988. The petitioner was called by respondent No.4 on 27.9.2000 alongwith documents. Despite that no job was provided to him. During this period a case under Sections 452,506,148 and 149 IPC was registered vide FIR No.103 dated 28.5.2000 at Police Station Gurdaspur and the petitioner was released on probation by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Civil Writ Petition No. 17248 of 2010 -2- Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-7). Thereafter, he made a representation dated 26.7.2007 (Annexure P-8) and the recommendations were turned down vide letter dated 19.5.2009 (Annexures P-10 and P-11) by the office of the Director General of Police (Amla-3, C.P.O.), Punjab, Chandigarh on the ground that the petitioner was appointed as constable in the year 2004 but after finding that a case FIR No.103 dated 28.5.2000 was registered and after character verification, the regimental number issued to the petitioner by the department was taken back by the concerned battalion. In the reply, filed by the Department, it is submitted that the petitioner's name was recommended to the Chairman, Central Recruitment Board-cum-Commandant 7th Bn. PAP Jalandhar Cantt. for enlistment as Constable but on verification, it was found that FIR No.103 dated 28.5.2000 has been registered against him, the approval granted on 1.7.2004 was withdrawn. The application for appointment was further submitted to the Commandant 75th Bn. by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur vide letter No.11672/EB dated 26.3.2008. On 03.6.2009 the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Rehabilitation and Disaster Management was intimated that the petitioner's name was approved for Constable but on verification a case FIR No.103 dated 28.5.2000 under Sections 452/506/427/148/149 IPC was found registered against him, so constabulary number allotted to him was withdrawn by the concerned Battalion. The representation dated 16.4.2009 was duly considered and rejected by the DGP on 03.6.2009 (Annexure R-2). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully. Mr. Puneet Gupta, Addl.A.G. Punjab has referred to a judgment passed by this Court dated 24.3.2008 (Annexure R-4) titled 'Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and others versus Central Administrative Civil Writ Petition No. 17248 of 2010 -3- Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and another' which relates to an appointment of Constables where on verification it was found that FIR had been registered under Sections332,324,325,34 IPC. The applicants had been acquitted by the competent court and they were seeking appointment as Constable in view of acquittal. The Division Bench of this Court after examining the judgments on judicial review of an administrative action has come to the conclusion that the Tribunal has erred in issuing directions for appointment of petitioners as Constables on being involved in a criminal case. Placing reliance of a judgment of this Court in Krishan Kumar versus State of Haryana 2005(2) PLR 820 wherein the order of the Tribunal was set aside and the original applications of the applicants were dismissed. Counsel for the respondent has referred to a judgment The Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway and another versus T.R. Chellappan (1976) 3 Supreme Court Cases 190 to contend that even release on probation will not deliberate the conviction of the delinquent employee. The order of release is merely a substitution of the sentence to be imposed by the Court. The stigma continues and the finding of misconduct resulting in conviction is to be treated as a conclusive proof. After going through the judgment dated 18.7.2007 (Annexure P-7) petitioner was given benefit of release on probation on the ground that he had been facing criminal proceedings trial since the year 2000. He was ordered to be released on probation for a period of one year by furnishing personal and surety bonds. Even though observation has been made in the order that the service career shall not be affected. In the present case he has been listed as Constable, which is discipline force and the Supreme Court in Delhi Administration versus Sushil Kumar (1996) 11 SCC (605) has held that on verification character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable for the post under the State or not. Civil Writ Petition No. 17248 of 2010 -4- Even if the candidate was found physically fit, pass the written test and interview and was provisionally selected but subsequently on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a constable to the disciplined force. This view of the appointing authority cannot be said to be unwarranted. In view of the facts stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. July 18, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE