C.W.P. No. 4452 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 4452 of 2008 Date of decision : 15.5.2008. ... Amit Kumar ................ Petitioner vs. State of Haryana and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh.Y.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Sh. Harish Rathee, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. ... Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioner was selected and joined as a Constable with the respondents on 10.6.2007. Thereafter, during character verification, it was noticed by the authorities that in his application, he has not stated that he was involved in a criminal case. On detection of abovesaid fact, vide order dated 9.8.2007, his services were terminated by stating that offence committed by him falls within the definition of moral turpitude and as such, he was ineligible for entry in police force of State of Haryana. When notice of motion was issued, following contention of counsel for the petitioner was noticed by this Court on 20.3.2008:- C.W.P. No. 4452 of 2008 -2- “Petitioner was selected and joined as a Constable on 10.6.2007. On getting report with regard to character verification, he was relieved from service on 9.8.2007 on the ground that before his selection, he was involved in a case registered under Section 379 IPC. Counsel for the petitioner states that before his selection, the petitioner was acquitted in that case on 24.10.2006, as such, registration of FIR, at an earlier point of time, cannot be a ground to remove the petitioner from service.” Upon notice, reply has been filed, wherein it has been stated that as the petitioner has failed to disclose material information, he has rightly been dismissed from service. It has further been stated that offence committed by him i.e. theft falls within offences including moral turpitude and on account of that his name was removed from the list of selected candidates. Counsel for the parties heard. It is apparent from the record that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner vide FIR No. 224 dated 25.10.2004, for commission of an offence under Section 379 of IPC. It was allegation against him that he alongwith three co-accused had stolen Kinnu-Malta and Mousami etc. from the garden of one Sher Singh. It is apparent from the record that after trial, the petitioner and other co-accused were acquitted on 24.10.2006. We have perused the judgment of acquittal (P-2). The Court has given a specific finding that there exists no incriminating evidence against the accused and on account of that they were acquitted of the charge C.W.P. No. 4452 of 2008 -3- framed against them. They were not even asked to enter their defence. None of the witnesses produced, supported case of the prosecution. We are of the opinion that acquittal of the petitioner is honourable and no aspersion has been caste upon him by the trial Court, when order of acquittal was passed. Counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice letter written by the Director General of Police, Haryana to all the Superintendents of Police in the State of Haryana. Relevant portion of abovesaid letter read thus:- “2. The matter has been examined and it is clarified that :- (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 appointment as constable. C.W.P. No. 4452 of 2008 -4- (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.” Reading of contents referred to above, clearly indicates that it has been ordered that if a candidate has not disclosed the factum of his involvement in a criminal case in his application, the same be ignored. It has further been stated that in case the candidate was acquitted honourably, he be appointed as a Constable. If that is so, we fail to understand as to on what ground petitioner has been thrown out of service. As per document Annexure R-4, the State Government has even devised a Policy to rehabilitate ex-convicts employees of the State of Haryana, if they were not involved in cases involving moral turpitude. In the present case, petitioner was honourably acquitted. There was nothing against him except that he was accused of having been involved in commission of theft. Petitioner was even acquitted before his selection. In view of letter issued by the Director General of Police, Haryana on 2.7.2007, we feel that this fact cannot be taken against him. In view of facts mentioned above, this writ petition is allowed. Order dated 9.8.2007 (P-4) stands quashed and we direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a Constable. His counsel very fairly states that if petitioner is given seniority and other notional benefits from the date persons lower in merit to him were appointed, he shall not claim any actual financial C.W.P. No. 4452 of 2008 -5- benefit. We order accordingly. Needful be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge ( K.C. Puri ) 15.5.2008. Judge chug