IMPORTANT POINT
Mere acquittal in criminal case does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service – Acquittal has to be honourable.

JUDGMENT :

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. The instant special leave petition is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2019 passed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar in LPASW No. 71 of 2018, whereby the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant and confirmed the order dated 14.05.2018 passed by the Single Bench dismissing the SWP No. 1766 of 2017.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner had successfully participated in the selection process conducted in 2008-2009 for the post of constable in the Jammu and Kashmir Executive Police, and he was issued an appointment letter dated 20.08.2009. The petitioner thereafter was deputed to the Police Training School, Manigam for undergoing the nine months BRTC course. It appears that thereafter the search slips of the ten newly recruited constables including the petitioner, were sent to the Director, Finger Print Bureau (CPPB) and NCRB East, New Delhi, for record and reference purpose, and the said Bureau vide the letter dated 07.12.2009 responded that the petitioner was involved in a case registered as FIR No. 52/2007 under Section 379 of Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and Section 6 of Forest Act, at the Police Station, Kralgund. The said case was stated to be pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Handwara. The matter was taken up with the Deputy Inspector General of Police, NKR, Baramulla, by the Police District Headquarter, Handwara, for cancellation of the selection of the petitioner. During the course of inquiry, a summary of allegations and charge-sheet were served to the petitioner. It was alleged that in the said criminal case, the petitioner was released on bail after four days of his arrest, and therefore the petitioner had good knowledge of his involvement in the criminal case and that he had consciously concealed the said information. It was also found during the course of inquiry that the petitioner had shown his residence at village Gundchobotra instead of Pakhribal in order to get a clean chit at the time of police verification. Under the circumstances, the appointment order dated 20.08.2009 of the petitioner was cancelled by the order dated 01.03.2010.

3. The petitioner challenged the said order of cancellation of his appointment by filing the writ petition being SWP No. 2616 of 2011 in the High Court. In the meantime, the petitioner was tried and acquitted in the criminal case by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Handwara vide the Judgment dated 26.04.2011. The said petition therefore came to be disposed of vide the order dated 18.05.2016 whereby the impugned order dated 01.03.2010 was set aside by the High Court. It was directed to the concerned respondent to take further action in view of the communication dated 27.02.2012 which in respect of the other persons similarly situated as the petitioner. On the reconsideration, the Director General of Police, Jammu and Kashmir, Srinagar, passed the order dated 31.07.2017 stating inter-alia that in view of the criminal background of the petitioner, he was found unsuitable for the post of constable in the disciplined force.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 31.07.2017, the petitioner filed the writ petition being SWP No. 1766 of 2017 seeking reinstatement with consequential benefits. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by the Single Bench vide the judgment and order dated 14.05.2018, whereby the Single Bench placing reliance on the decision of Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration And Others vs. Pradeep Kumar and Another, (2018) 1 SCC 797 held that the decision of the Director General of Police, the highest functionary in the hierarchy of police department, to consider the suitability of the appellant for induction into police force, could not be called into question. The aggrieved petitioner therefore filed the LPA, which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench vide the impugned order.

5. Though the matter was argued at length by the learned counsels for the p