An acquittal does not automatically qualify a candidate for position in disciplined forces; assessment of moral character and suitability by the selection committee is paramount.

ORDER :

1. This review petition is filed for review of the order dated 19.12.2023 passed in W.P. No. 11550/2022 (S-KSAT) and to allow the said writ petition.

2. Facts leading to filing of the present review petition are as under:

a. Petitioner was provisionally selected for the post of Civil Police Constable, Davanagere District under the SC (Others) category. In the final selection list his name was not included on the ground that he was unfit for the post as he was an accused in crime No. 204/2009 of Harapanahalli Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 504 , 420 and 354 of IPC. On filing charge sheet, case came to be registered as C.C. No. 150/2011 (old C.C. No. 636/2009) on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Harapanahalli and petitioner had not disclosed the pendency of said criminal case when he made application for selection. Respondent No. 2 has cancelled the selection of the petitioner and issued order to that effect.

-

b. Being aggrieved by the order of cancellation of selection, petitioner had approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'KSAT’) in application No. 2065/2012 and sought quashing of cancellation of selection and direction to the respondents to select and appoint him to the post of Civil Police Constable under SC (Others) category, etc.

c. During the pendency of the said application before the KSAT, respondents brought to the notice of the Tribunal that petitioner was involved in one more crime in crime No. 106/2011 of Harapanahalli Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 504 , 323 and 354 of IPC and it is pending in C.C. No. 732/2011 on the file of JMFC, Harapanahalli. Both cases were registered on the complaint lodged by one Kumari Bhagyamma, resident of petitioner’s village. In crime No. 204/2009 said Kumari Bhagyamma had lodged a complaint against petitioner alleging that though the petitioner had promised to marry her, later he retracted on the promise and when it was questioned by her, on 28.08.2009 petitioner had gone to her flour mill and abused her in filthy language. The petitioner had been convicted by the trial Court and acquitted in the application by judgment dated -06.11.2014.

d. The KSAT dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Petitioner had challenged the order passed by the KSAT before this Court in W.P. No. 21901/2016 (S- KAT). This Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for selection.

e. Inspite of direction of this Court to comply the direction within 3 months, the respondents did not take any action. Hence, petitioner filed CCC No. 147/2020 (Civil) before this Court for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents.

-

f. After service of contempt notice, respondent No. 2 had filed counter affidavit and produced proceedings dated 22.11.2019 and endorsement dated 13.01.2020. This Court by order dated 22.12.2020 discharged the respondents and observed that it will be open for the complainant/petitioner to file appropriate proceedings for challenging the endorsement in accordance with law.

g. In the affidavit filed in C.C.C. No. 147/2022 respondent No. 2 had contended that pursuant to the order passed by this Court a committee was formed to consider the case of petitioner and the committee thereafter, considered the case and in the proceedings held that petitioner is not entitled for appointment for multiple reasons, particularly, for the reason that several criminal cases were registered against him and that he was recorded as rowdy sheeter by order passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Harapahanahalli Sub-Division, Davanagere District. Petitioner filed W.P. No. 101459/2021 (GM-Police) before the Dharwad Bench seeking direction to the respondents therein to consider the representation of the petitioner for removing his name from rowdy sheeter. Subsequently, concerned authority considered his representation and rowdy sheet was placed in unmoved r