IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1592 of 2008 PRABHAT KUMAR @ MANTU SINGH . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS . ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Arun Kumar Arun, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kishore Singh, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Satish Kr. Sinha, AC to AAG-4 Mr Ray Shivaji Nath, AAG-4 -------------- 5. 4.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was an applicant under Advertisement No. 1 of 2004, for appointment on the post of Constable. He participated in the selection process, physical fitness test successfully and received his appointment letter. This was subject to his character verification. The character verification report dated 2.11.2007 stated that he was an accused in Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 96 of 1992 under Sections 320 and other provisions of the Penal Code. Noticing that he was a young man aged about 21 years, the occurrence relating to a village land dispute he was after conviction under Section 147 I.P.C. only directed to be released on probation under Section 360 of the Cr. P.C. for a period of one year on a bond of Rs. 2000/-. There was no complaint against his conduct during the period of probation. There are no allegations of any misrepresentation or concealment by the petitioner 2 during the selection process. He bona fide believed that in absence of a conviction followed by imprisonment and on the contrary release on probation for a period of one year only under Section 360 of the Cr. P.C., to enable him to return into the main stream of the society, the period having expired much earlier there was no need for him to make such disclosure. In support of his submission of the social and legislative intent of Section 360 of the Cr. P.C. the petitioner relies upon the judgments reported in A.I.R. 1957 Andhra Pradesh 532 (Public Prosecutor, Andhra Vs. Shaik Dastagiri) and A.I.R. 1924 (Nagpur) 37 (Maung Tha Dun & Ors. Vs. Ma Thein Yin). Opposing the application, learned counsel for the State submits that there can be quarrel with the proposition of the social legislative intent of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C., While it may be relevant for other societal purposes or for any other employment but when the employer makes the character verification of a candidate, a condition precedent more so on the post of Constable, a uniformed disciplined force, the situation becomes otherwise. The desirability of taking into employment one who has been convicted but released on probation remains in the realm of the employer. The social purpose of Section 360 of the Cr. P.C. does not 3 supplant the rights of the employer and the conditions stipulated by him in the selection process. The absence of any concealment becomes an irrelevant issue. He relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1996)11 SCC 605 in the case of Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary & Ors Vs. Sushil Kumar, in which the candidate was selected for appointment as a Constable in the Delhi Police Service subject to character verification. His antecedents were found not desirable. Upon employment being denied on that ground, the Tribunal held that in view of his acquittal in the criminal trial, he cannot be denied consideration holding as follows in the relevant extract of the judgment reported in (1996)11 (supra) at Paragraph 3 reads as follows:- “3. …………….It is seen that verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Through he was found physically fit, passed the written test and the interview and was provisionally selected, 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. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the direction for reconsideration of his case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offences, the same has nothing to do 4 with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequences. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focused this aspect and found it not desirable to appoint him to the service.” This Court, therefore, finds difficult to grant any relief to the petitioner. The application is dismissed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)