C.M. No. 1794 of 2010 & LPA No. 621 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 1794 of 2010 & LPA No. 621 of 2010 Date of decision:- 12.10.2010 Union of India through Secretary of India, Home Department, New Delhi and others. ......Appellants Vs Sanjay Kumar ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: - Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the respondent. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, J (ORAL) C.M. No. 1794 of 2010 Heard. Delay condoned for the reasons mentioned in the condonation application. LPA No. 621 of 2010 Heard. The brief facts may be noticed at the outset. The respondent/writ petitioner was duly selected for appointment as a Constable in CISF. By letter dated 01.06.2007 he was offered C.M. No. 1794 of 2010 & LPA No. 621 of 2010 2 appointment and was asked to join the Basic Training Course which the respondent/writ petitioner did by reporting to the concerned Unit on 16.06.2007. At the time of reporting to the Unit all documents and testimonials required to be submitted were so submitted by the respondent/writ petitioner. One of the documents submitted by the respondent/writ petitioner was a certificate issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rohtak dated 09.06.2007 stating that there was a pending case against the respondent/writ petitioner under Sections 302/323/120-B/34 IPC which was at the trial stage. Thereafter, by order dated 02.11.2007 (Annexure P5) the offer of appointment dated 01.06.2007 and the Nomination to the Basic Training Course was withdrawn. The criminal case against the respondent/writ petitioner ended on 26.04.2008 by an order of acquittal. The respondent/writ petitioner thereafter instituted CWP No. 2522 of 2009 challenging the cancellation of his offer of appointment and the Nomination to undergo the Basic Training Course made by order dated 02.11.2007. The learned Single Judge accepted the challenge made by the respondent/writ petitioner giving rise to this appeal by the Union of India and others. It is not the case of the appellants that the respondent/writ petitioner had suppressed the criminal case that was pending against him. In fact, detailed information in this regard was furnished by the respondent/writ petitioner. At the stage when the impugned order dated 02.11.2007 was passed the said criminal case was still pending. C.M. No. 1794 of 2010 & LPA No. 621 of 2010 3 However, the respondent/writ petitioner was acquitted in the said case on 26.04.2008. A reading of the order of acquittal indicates that the respondent/writ petitioner was brought to trial by invoking the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C on the basis of the statement of a co- accused. The charge against him was not of the substantive offence under Section 302 but with the aid of Section 120-B and 34 IPC. Not an iota of material against the respondent/writ petitioner was adduced in the trial held. Accordingly, the respondent/writ petitioner was acquitted. The order of acquittal nullified and brought to an end the criminal case pending against the petitioner. Upon conclusion of the same the appellants could not have treated the pendency of the criminal case to be a valid ground for continuing with the order dated 02.11.2007. To permit the appellants to do so would be contrary to law as in that event the appellants would be sitting in judgement over the verdict of a competent Court. We, therefore, find no good reason to hold that the order/direction passed by the learned Single Judge is in any way erroneous. We have, however, noticed that the learned Single Judge had directed for the appointment of the respondent/writ petitioner in the post of Constable. The respondent/writ petitioner is yet to complete the Basic Training Course. His challenge in the writ petition was against the order cancelling the provisional offer of appointment and the order requiring the respondent/writ petitioner to undergo the Basic Training Course. We are informed that completion of Basic Training Course is a C.M. No. 1794 of 2010 & LPA No. 621 of 2010 4 mandatory requirement before being appointed as a Constable. It is, therefore, our considered view the just and appropriate order in the present case would be to direct the appellants to allow the respondent/writ petitioner to complete the Basic Training Course and if he successfully completes the same to issue consequential orders of appointment in accordance with the norms in force. Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid modification. (RANJAN GOGOI) JUDGE (RAJAN GUPTA) 12.10.2010 JUDGE Amodh