JUDGMENT :

1. Heard on admission.

2. The order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge has been assailed on the ground that present is not a case where the appellant was finally convicted of the charges. It is submitted that even if it is admitted that at the time of police verification, the appellant suppressed the fact regarding institution and pendency of a criminal case registered against him, once there has been an acquittal, the appellant was entitled to be adjudged as suitable for appointment. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of EX-Const/DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar Versus Union of India & Others. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10499 of 2022), decided on 16.01.2023 has not been correctly appreciated by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Attention of the Court is also drawn to Circular dated 29.04.1995 by submitting that even in such a case, the department has a discretion, but here the discretion was exercised capriciously and arbitrarily.

3. Undisputed facts of the case are that the appellant had applied for appointment against the post in the disciplined force. It is also not in dispute that when a police verification was made and enquiry was made from the appellant, he suppressed the fact regarding institution and pendency of a criminal case registered against him. This fact was taken into consideration by the respondents while adjudging his suitability and it was decided not to grant appointment to the appellant.

4. Learned Single Judge has applied the principles propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of EX-Const/DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar Versus Union of India & Others (Supra).

5. In the aforesaid decision, after taking into consideration the principles as summarized in para 38 of the Larger Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Versus Union of India and Others (2016) 8 SCC 471, following principles were laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:-

“8. It may be noted that even after the guiding principles laid down in the case of Avtar Singh by the three-judge Bench, divergent views were expressed by the various benches of this Court. Therefore, this Court in case of Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India & Others. (2022) SCC Online SC 1300, after taking into consideration the inconsistent views taken in the cases of Union of India & Ors. Vs Methu Meda (2022) 1 SCC 1; Union of India vs. Dilip Kumar Mallick (2022) 6 Scale 108; Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2022) SCC Online SC 532; Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited & Anr. Vs. Anil Kanwariya (2021) 10 SCC 136; Mohammed Imran Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others (2019) 17 SCC 696; etc., further laid down following principles:

“89. The only reason to refer to and look into the various decisions rendered by this Court as above over a period of time is that the principles of law laid therein governing the subject are bit inconsistent. Even after, the larger Bench decision in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) different courts have enunciated different principles.

90. In such circumstances, we undertook some exercise to shortlist the broad principles of law which should be made applicable to the litigations of the present nature. The principles are as follows:

(a) Each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by the public employer concerned, through its designated officials-more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society's security. [See Raj Kumar (supra)]

(b) Even in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. The acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post. It would be