A solitary case of rash and negligent driving, where the candidate pleaded guilty and deposited the fine, would not constitute a ground to deny public employment.

JUDGMENT

D.B. Civil Misc. Restoration Application No. 267/2018:

1. For the reasons stated in the application, the writ-appeal is restored.

2. The application is allowed.

D.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 212/2018 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal(W) No. 244/2018:

1. For the reasons mentioned in the application delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. The application is allowed.

D.B. Special Appeal(W) No. 244/2018:

1. Impugned order dated 02.02.2017 has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent issuing directions which were issued on the same day in writ petitions where identical issue arose, lead matter being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18178/2013, Vinay Pal Yadav v. Jaipur City Transport Service Limited & Anr.

2. The writ-petitioners were drivers. Charged for having committed offences for rash and negligence driving of buses, they either pleaded guilty or entered into a compromise. Being selected by the appellant they were denied appointment. The learned Single Judge had taken the view that since there was no moral turpitude, non-grant of service as a result of conviction on a plea of guilt or compounding on account of compromise would not justify appointment to be denied.

3. On 19.07.2017 deciding D.B. Special Appeal(W) No. 424/2017, Jaipur City Transport Services Limited & Anr. v. Vijay Pal Yadav , the Division Bench held as under:-

"Instant bunch of appeals are primarily on the same set of facts and based on the judgment passed by the Ld. Single Judge in SB CWP No. 18178/2013 decided on 02.02.2017.

Taking note of the self same controversy, with consent of the parties, we take note of the facts from DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 424/2017.

The facts are not in dispute and the question raised for consideration was as to what will be the effect of conviction for rash & negligent driving on pleading guilty in reference to final selection of the candidate while adjudging overall suitability & offering appointment to the post of Vehicle Driver. It is not disputed that the respondents-applicants after having finally qualified in the selection process, were placed in the order of merit and otherwise found to be suitable to be considered for appointment in their respective category but at the time of police verification their character was found good at the same time it was informed by the concerned police station that at one point of time the applicant was charged for offence of rash & negligent driving u/Ss. 279, 337, 338 IPC & also u/S.134 & 187 of MV Act and on having pleaded guilty deposited the fine and since he was to be considered for appointment to the post of Vehicle Driver, looking to the nature of solitary criminal case instituted against him and held guilty it was not considered desirable to be appointed to the post of Vehicle Driver despite being placed in the order of merit. It may be noted that it is not a case of moral turpitude or of an offence which primarily deprives a person for seeking public employment. The Ld. Single Judge after examining the material on record in extenso arrived to the conclusion that conviction for the alleged offence of rash & negligent driving cannot in itself constitute a ground to non-suit the candidate in seeking public employment who has been finally selected after going through the selection process and relied on the judgment of the Apex Court & other judgments on the question raised for consideration.

It may be further noticed that the Legislature in its wisdom has introduced Sec.265-A under Chapter-XXIA, inserted by Act 2 of 2006 (w.e.f.5-7-2006) with the object that cases of minor nature may not clog the judicial system and may be decided at the earliest possible even in Lok Adalat without being tried, on acceptance of guilt as permissible under the provisions of law.

It is true that the kind of post in question of Vehicle Driver, rash & negligent driving is one of the cause which certainly cannot in itself be ruled out and if the candidate/ employee maintains consistency of being charged fo