CWP No.4912 of 2007 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4912 of 2007 Date of Decision: 13.5.2008 Anil Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Inspector General of Police and others ....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Shri Ram Chander, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Rajiv Malhotra, Advocate, for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 4.1.2007 (Annexure P.3) and the order dated 15.2.2007, whereby appeal against the order dated 4.1.2007 was dismissed maintaining the order of terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner was recruited as a constable in the Central Reserved Police Force (for short `CRPF'), vide appointment letter dated 15.4.2006. The petitioner submitted a character certificate dated 24.4.2006, but the services of the petitioner were terminated on 4.1.2007 vide order Annexure P.3. In order Annexure P.6 passed in appeal, it was found that while filling in the verification report, the petitioner has not disclosed registration of the case under sections 147, 451, 323, 506 IPC in Police Station Bhoranj, District Hamirpur and, therefore, he has violated the warning given at the time of submitting the verification CWP No.4912 of 2007 (2) report. As per the said warning, concealment of any material information is deemed to be a disqualification. It was found that the challan in the aforesaid case was presented on 16.5.2005, whereas he has furnished verification report on 28.4.2006 and therefore, the stand of the petitioner that he was not aware of the case is not tenable. It has been further found that the acquittal of the petitioner by the Court, does not mean that he is exonerated from the charge of concealment of the facts. Since the petitioner has given a false verification report, that fact alone is sufficient for termination of his services. Even otherwise, acquittal in a criminal case after joining the CRPF, is wholly immaterial. Recently, we had the occasion to examine the question whether the applicant, who has been exonerated of criminal charges is entitled to be appointed after his acquittal in the criminal case in CWP No. 5908-CAT of 2003 -Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and others v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and another, decided on 24.3.2008. It was held therein as under:- “A perusal of the Rules extracted above would show that the standard of performance and reputation of the entire police force depend upon the quality of its constables. Rule 12.14 of the Rules, contemplates that recruit should be of a good character and great care shall be taken in selecting men of a type suitable for police service from candidates presenting themselves for enrolment. Rule 12.18 of the Rules again refers to character and suitability for enrolment of every recruit and that a search slip has to be sent to the Finger Print Bureau, in order to establish his freedom or otherwise from conviction. The lambardar or ward member shall, if the recruit is of good character, furnish a certificate to that effect which shall be verified and attested by the Sub-Inspector in charge of the local police station. A perusal of the above Rules CWP No.4912 of 2007 (3) would show that the emphasis is on the good character and suitability. The question which arises is whether determination of the suitability of a candidate for being appointed as a constable in the disciplined force can be subject matter of judicial review, when the decision making process is not said to be lacking any bona-fide or based upon irrelevant and inadmissible considerations. The police constable is representative of might of the State. Whether a candidate who has a history of a criminal case against him, which might have resulted in his acquittal is entitled to wield a State batten is the question involved in the present set of writ petitions. xx xx xx In the present case, the case of the applicant is not the one of the disciplinary proceedings. The verification of the character and antecedents is prior to the appointment. Such verification is not required to be examined so as to find out the involvement of the candidate in the criminal offence. Such verification is not for the purposes of initiating any departmental proceedings against a candidate, but a stage anterior to appointment so as to frame an opinion whether such candidate is required to be inducted as a member of the disciplined force. Whether the criminal proceedings, which led to acquittal of the candidate are relevant for determining the suitability of a candidate or not is left to the discretion of the competent authority. However, such discretion is not an arbitrary discretion but has to be exercised on the principles of sound reasons and logic. While exercising the powers of judicial review, the superior Courts are required to examine the decision making process and not decision itself. Once, the involvement of the candidate in the criminal proceedings is established, its effect for induction in the police force is to be examined by the authorities, who have been assigned duties of maintaining law and order. Each appointment in the CWP No.4912 of 2007 (4) police has to be above board. Since the constable has to interact with masses at the grass root level, the decision of appointment of such person to the police force has to be based on unblemished good character after taking great care in selecting the suitable persons.” For the reasons recorded in the aforesaid judgment, we do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE 13-05-2008 ds