The pendency of a criminal case is not a disqualification for appointment or discharge from service.

1. - In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the validity and correctness of order dated 6.12.1985 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Tonk and order dated 16.12.1985 issued by the Principal, Rajasthan Police Training Centre, Jodhpur. By the impugned order dated 6.12.1985, the petitioner was discharged from the post of Police Constable and by the impugned order dated 16.12.1985, he was relieved of the post.

2. Material facts which are quite interesting may be narrated in brief. In pursuance to notice Annexure-l dated 23.6.1977 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Tonk (respondent No. 2), the petitioner applied for the post of a civil police constable. After the due process, he was selected and his name appeared at serial No. 34 in the merit list of the selected candidates. Appointment, to the candidates in the merit list at serial No. 35, 36 and 37 viz. Kishan Lal, Gorilal and Rama were given but no appointment was given to the petitioner. On inquirers made by him, he came to know that the appointment was refused to him on account of the pendency of a criminal case for offences U/Sees. 147, 323 & 325 Indian Penal Code against him and some other persons in the court of a Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner approached respondent No. 2 contending before him that the pendency of the criminal case could not be taken as a valid ground for refusing appointment to him. His attempts proved abortive. He, therefore, filed a writ petition in this Court and challenged the action of respondent No. 2 for not giving hern the appointment. By order Annexure-3 dated April 20, 1982, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that no mandamus can be issued in respect of the making of appointments. However, it was observed in the order :

"All I can say is that the petitioner is not disqualified for appointment as a police constable merely because a criminal complaint has been filed against him. Nevertheless, the matter of appointment is something which is dependent on so mary other considerations and must therefore be kit to the best judgment of the authorities in the police department. This Court cannot possibly interfere in this matter."

3. The matter lingered on and no appointment of the petitioner was made. On 21.11.1984 Ladu Lal who was the complainant in the criminal case, submitted application Annexure 5 before the Superintendent of Police, Tonk stating therein that the offences were compounded and as such proper orders be passed. The Superintendent of Police thereafter issued order Annexure-4 on 1.12.1984 appointing the petitioner as a constable in the civil police and he was tent for training in the Rajasthan Police Training Centre, Jodhpur. While he was undergoing the training there, the impugned order dated 16.12.1985 was served on him and he was relieved of the post. The petitioner approached the Superintendent of Police. Tonk and asked for the copy of the order dated 6.12.1985 by which he was discharged from service. No copy was, however, supplied to him by the Superintendent of Police. He ran from pillar to post and made all efforts to seek reappointment but in vain on esquires being made, he learnt that Ladu Lal submitted an application on 18.7.1985 before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jaipur stating therein that no compromise between him and the petitioner was ever made and the criminal case is still pending against the petitioner in the court of the Judicial Magistrate. The Superintendent of Police, Tonk acting on this application, passed the impugned order on 6.12.1985, discharging the petitioner from service. It was in pursuance to this order dated 6.12.1985 that the petitioner was relieved from the post while he was undergoing the training at Jodhpur. The trial of the criminal case continued. By the judgment Annexure-6 dated January 17. 1985, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk convicted the petitioner and six others for the offences Under Sections 147, 323 & 32