The State of Haryana and Others vs Tarun Kumar

This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, directing consideration of case of the respondent for appointment as Constable from the due date.

In pursuance of advertisement for filling up 3700 posts of Constables, the respondent-writ petitioner applied and was selected on 23.4.2007. He was not allowed to join training on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him in FIR No. 440 dated 6.9.2003 u/s 392 and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak, alleging that he alongwith two other co-accused had kidnapped Dr. Joginder Singh alongwith his car. After trial, he was acquitted on 26.7.2008, on which he sought joining of service, which prayer was not accepted. The respondent filed writ petition, contending that after acquittal, he could not be denied appointment, which was contested by the State, in view of instructions dated 13.11.2007 (Annexure R-1) to the effect that if acquittal was on technical ground, appointment may be denied. Learned Single Judge held that the instructions cannot be mechanically applied to deny appointment in every case. Acquittal and conviction could not be treated at par.

We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants.

It is not disputed that the pendency of case was disclosed by the writ petitioner in his application and inspite of that he was selected. Mere pendency of a case was not treated as bar to his selection. Even though acquittal may not always be conclusive of involvement of a person, in absence of any independent consideration of material against him, mere registration of a case cannot be treated to be a bar against appointment. Acquittal in criminal case may not debar enquiry or examination of correctness or otherwise of allegation against a person, in absence of any other independent examination, acquittal has to be taken into account. By impugned judgment, learned Single Judge has only directed the State to consider the matter and in the course of such consideration, the State can independently look into the matter and come to a conclusion. There is, thus, no ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge.

The appeal is dismissed.