A person with criminal antecedents, even if acquitted, cannot be appointed to the police force, which is a disciplined force.

Asha Arora, J.

1. The petitioner applied for the post of Sergeant in Calcutta Police in the year 1998. He passed the written test as well as the interview and was provisionally selected to the said post in the year 2000 after being found physically fit. The petitioner’s selection was subject to verification of his character and antecedents by the local police. The Verification Roll submitted by the petitioner revealed that he was involved in a criminal case being Bowbazar P.S Case No. 108 dated 06/4/2000 under Sections 120 B/420/170/415 of the I.P.C. He was therefore not given appointment. On 06/12/2003 the petitioner was acquitted of the offences in the aforesaid criminal case being G.R. No. 1183 of 2000 whereafter he submitted a representation before the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Head Quarters) Kolkata for considering his appointment. In compliance with the order dated 09/6/2004 of the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A No. 989 of 2001 the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kolkata gave a personal hearing to the petitioner regarding his representation which was rejected by an order dated 26/8/2004 the operative part of which is as follows:

“After careful consideration of the facts, circumstances and merit of the case, and also after due application of mind as well as taking all aspects of natural justice, in view of the Hon’ble Tribunal’s order in the instant matter. I find no scope to consider his case for appointment to the post of Sergeant in Kolkata Police at this stage. Hence, his prayer is considered and rejected.”

2. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Head Quarters) Kolkata (respondent no. 3) before the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A No. 1353 of 2006 which was dismissed vide order dated 14/1/2010 the concluding part of which is quoted hereunder:

“Following the submissions of the learned Advocates of both sides and in view of the clear observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as indicated above, we find that the answer to this application would be in the negative. The application accordingly stands dismissed.

3. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court against the order dated 14/1/2010 of the Tribunal.

4. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Kallol Bose, the learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that at the time of selection process there was no criminal case against the petitioner. The charge brought against the petitioner subsequently, which could not be proved, cannot take away his claim for appointment. Referring to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Swapan Kumar Maity versus South Eastern Railways and others reported in 2007 (4) CHN 616, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that denial of appointment to the petitioner in view of pendency of criminal case against him was erroneous. Mr. Bose sought to impress upon us that the petitioner himself had mentioned in the verification roll about the pending criminal case and there was no suppression of this fact by him. Further submission on behalf of the petitioner is that since the criminal case ended in acquittal, his appointment ought to have been considered. In support of his argument the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 2326 in the case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi and another versus Dhaval Singh. Reference has also been made to the decisions of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others versus Dinesh Kumar reported in 2008 Supreme Court 1083, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 2010 in Union of India versus K.V. Jankiraman and to the case of Monoj Narula versus Union of India reported in (2014) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1.

5. Mr. Joytosh Majumdar appearing for the respondents countered that a person having criminal antecedents even if acquitted in the criminal case cannot be appointed to a post in the police force which is a disciplined force. It has further been argued that the conduct or