CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15109 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 02, 2009 Tarun Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. R. S. Tacoria, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Constable in Haryana Police in response to 3700 posts so advertised on 3.5.2006. The petitioner qualified in various tests and interview and was accordingly selected on 23.4.2007. The merit list was displayed on the notice Board and the name of the petitioner was at No.6 in the merit list. On medical examination, he was found medically fit. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent for training to 4th Battalion, Madhuban, District Karnal. He was not allowed to join the training on the ground that there was one FIR registered against him and, thus, the Constabulary number could not be given to him. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15109 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 2 }: Upon character verification of the petitioner, it was reported that there was an FIR No.440, dated 6.9.2003 under Section 392 IPC and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered against the petitioner at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak. As per the petitioner, this case has been falsely registered against him and three other persons with the allegation that the petitioner alongwith two other co-accused had kidnapped Dr.Joginder Singh alongwith his car. The petitioner filed a representation, when respondents refused to give constabulary number to him. He also pointed out that the case was in progress and in such eventuality, he could not be refused appointment merely on account of pendency of a criminal case. The petitioner ultimately was acquitted of the allegation on 26.7.2008. He, thereafter submitted certified copy of the judgment but still the respondents refused to entertain the representation of the petitioner to give him appointment and hence, he has filed this writ petition. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 would point out to the fact that the petitioner was facing criminal case under various Sections and the offences were such which were involving moral turpitude. They would further say that the petitioner has been acquitted of the offences by giving benefit of doubt and, thus, the acquittal is on technical grounds. By referring to the instructions issued by the Director General of Police dated 13.11.2007, it is stated that a person facing criminal case like offence under Section 392 IPC etc. can not be given appointment even upon his acquittal if it is on technical ground of benefit of doubt. A similar issue arose before this Court in another Civil CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15109 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 3 }: Writ Petition No.2124 of 2009 (Parvesh Vs. State of Haryana and others), where appointment was denied to the petitioner therein on the ground that he was acquitted of an offence involving moral turpitude and hence, could not be given appointment and constabulary number. The effect and scope of these instructions has been discussed in detail in the said case, including that of the instructions dated 13.11.2007. The meaning of the term `moral turpitude' has been considered and explained in detail. The continued ill effect of the criminal case despite acquittal, as per these instructions, has also been considered in the above noted judgment. The instructions issued on the subject have also been analysed in the case of Parvesh (supra). There would not be much need to understand the meaning of term `moral turpitude', considering the facts in this case as there would not be much difficulty in saying that the offence of dacoity alleged against the petitioner would be covered by the definition of term `moral turpitude'. Accordingly, what is required to be seen, thus, is whether the action of the respondents in denying appointment to the petitioner despite his acquittal of this offence on the basis of instructions referred to above would be justified or not. Some observations in this regard have already been made in Parvesh's case (supra). The petitioner obviously has been denied appointment on the basis of instructions dated 13.11.2007, which inter-alia provides that candidate acquitted on technical ground in offences involving moral turpitude shall not be considered for allotment of constabulary number. These instructions have been issued in continuation of another instructions dated 2.07.2007, which CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15109 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 4 }: have made a provision that the candidates who were involved in criminal case and stand acquitted at the time of declaration of selection list may be considered for appointment as Constable. As was observed in Parvesh's case (supra), these instructions have been issued only for particular selections and are not of general application and this would not be binding in nature. A perusal of instructions dated 2.7.2007 provides that cases of acquittal and charges of moral turpitude are to be minutely examined and after careful appraisal of the judgment those who are acquitted honourably are to be considered for appointment as constables. If the instructions are allowed to operate in this manner, as pleaded by the respondents, the difference between acquittal and conviction will loose significance. What good would be this acquittal to the petitioner if the allegations are still to be held against him. Once a person earned an acquittal after trial, it would not be fair to deny him appointment on the ground that he was accused of having committed an offence involving moral turpitude. He may be alleged to have committed this offence but it is proved that he has not been guilty of commission of any such offence. Upon acquittal, an honour of such a person accused of offence would stand vindicated. Can he still be put to disadvantage and the infirmity. Unfair operation of this approach and that of the instructions can easily be demonstrated by noticing that if such a person had been in the service, his conviction may have led to his dismissal and after acquittal, he was entitled to seek reinstatement, as per the Government instructions. The observation made by the Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2124 of 2009 may be noticed here:- CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15109 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 5 }: “Is this action fair? What is then a difference between conviction and acquittal if the effect is to be the same. As per instructions dated 3.2.2009 (Annexure R-1), the petitioner would appear eligible for appointment but still is struggling to get one. These instructions have been specifically issued for recruitment of 1940 male constables as can be seen from the subject heading of the instructions. As per the said instructions, if a candidate was acquitted before the date of appearance of the advertisement i.e. 23.8.2007, he is to be given an appointment if he fulfills all other mandatory requirements. Since the petitioner in this case was acquitted prior to issuance of this advertisement, he is eligible for appointment as per the instructions, dated 3.2.2009, Annexure R-1. The other part of the instructions in fact may not be attracted to the case of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner has been denied appointment by invoking instructions issued by the D.G.P., dated 13.11.2007, which provides that such candidates who are acquitted on technical grounds in offences involving moral turpitude are not entitled for allotment of any constabulary number. These instructions have not been placed on record but have been perused by the Court. The relevant part thereof reads as under:- “This matter has been further examined and clarification conveyed vide this office letter referred to above is modified as under:- CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15109 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 6 }: a) Candidates against whom cases are pending should be considered for allotment of Constabulary number except those who are facing investigation/trial or have been convicted in offences, involving moral turpitude. b) The candidates acquitted on technical grounds in offences involving moral turpitude, shall also not be considered for allotment of constabulary number.” It is part (b) above of the instructions, which is being invoked against the petitioner. The instructions dated 13.11.2007 are in continuation of another communication/instructions dated 2.7.2007, relevant portion of which is as under:- “(a) Candidates who were involved in criminal cases and stand acquitted at the time of declaration of selection list may be considered for appointment as constable even if they had not disclosed the fact of their facing trial or acquittal in column No.12 of the application form. But those candidates who have faced charges of moral turpitude during their trial but got acquitted merely on technical grounds or on account of giving of benefit of doubt may not be considered for appointment as constable. In this regard, it is stated that all cases of acquittal in charges of moral turpitude should be minutely examined after careful appraisal of the judgments and such candidates who have been acquitted honourably may, however be considered for appointments as constable. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15109 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 7 }: b) All those candidates who are facing trial for any criminal offence will not be considered for appointment as constable. c) Candidates who have been convicted for any criminal offence shall not be given appointment.” These instructions seem to have been issued in regard to particular selection and apparently are not for general application. These are apparently for the purpose of guidance and can not be taken to be of a binding in nature. As per these instructions, Constabulary number can be denied to those who are facing investigation, trial or have been convicted for offences involving moral turpitude. Those who are acquitted on technical ground of the offence involving moral turpitude are also not to be considered for allotting the constabulary number. The clarificatory communication dated 2.7.2007, part of which is reproduced above would show that the cases of acquittal and charges of moral turpitude are to be minutely examined and after careful appraisal of the judgment, those who are acquitted honourably are to be considered for appointment as Constables. The provision to honourable acquittal of a charge perhaps is not available. Reading of these communications and the stand taken by the respondents would clearly show that the petitioner is being denied appointment on the ground that he is acquitted of an offence involving CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15109 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 8 }: moral turpitude by giving benefit of doubt and hence, is not to be so appointed as Constable.....” Can then in the present scenario, he be denied appointment? There may be some sense in the submission that person who is known to be involved in a criminal case, should not be given appointment but the fact that he stands acquitted of this offence, can not altogether be ignored. The distinction between giving appointment to those persons who are acquitted of offences not involving moral turpitude and those who are acquitted of such offences involving moral turpitude may be a fine one but the fact of acquittal is the base which can not be ignored. Once a person has been acquitted of the allegation, then the offence alleged or the allegation made against him, can not be held against him any further. This infirmity must be removed in law and otherwise and can not be attached to the person like the petitioner merely on the basis of instructions which can not even be termed as administrative or executive instructions having been issued by either Head of the Department or some such functionaries. In my considered opinion, acquittal can not be given a different colour on the basis of some communication, which is given the shape of instructions, to deny appointment to such persons like the petitioner. In fact, in this regard, I can seek support from Civil Writ Petition No.17043 of 2007 (Pardeep Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others), decided on 2.5.2008 and Civil Writ Petition No.4452 of 2008 (Amit Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others), decided on 15.5.2008. I would, thus, allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for his CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15109 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 9 }: appointment and giving constabulary number to him from the date it is due to him. September 02, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE