Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 188
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
DINESH MEHTA, J.
Badri Ram S/o Bhikha Ram – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14681 of 2019
Decided On : 14-03-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Badri Ram.
For the Respondents: Manish Vyas, Kailash Choudhary.
Point of Law: In respect of a heinous or serious nature of crime acquittal is based on a benefit of reasonable doubt, it cannot make candidate eligible for appointment.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 - Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 - Rule 16, 17, 18, 19(2) – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 311(2) - Removed from services - False declaration - Non disclosure of case registered against him - Aggrieved of order passed whereby petitioner has been removed from services, petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of Court – Respondents themselves got character verification done and being cognizant of such fact had allowed petitioner to join - Para 33.
Finding of the Court :
Petitioner neither made a false declaration nor was it a case of non disclosure of case registered against him at time of submitting application form/police verification - At time of furnishing details of criminal case or getting appointment order, he had disclosed fact that pursuant to a complaint, an FIR has been registered - Respondents themselves got character verification done and being cognizant of such fact had allowed petitioner to join - There is no allegation of concealment or non-disclosure of facts in extant case - Impugned order passed by respondent no.3 is hereby quashed.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
DINESH MEHTA, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 23.09.2019 (Annx.3) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Headquarter and Traffic, Jodhpur, whereby the petitioner has been removed from the services, the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court.
2. Facts pertinent for the present purposes are that the petitioner vied for the post of Constable (General) pursuant to recruitment Notification dated 25.05.2018 by submitting an application form in the month of May/June, 2018.
3. The petitioner being meritorious and eligible was offered appointment by way of appointment order dated 26.09.2018.
4. During police verification which the respondents got done, petitioner’s antecedents were found in order, whereafter, he was allowed to join the services.
5. Before the petitioner could join the services, his erstwhile wife Mrs. Saroj filed a complaint before the respondents informing therein that an FIR being FIR No. 78/2018 has been registered against him under sections 498-A, 406 and 323 of Indian Penal Code in the Police Station Borunda, Jodhpur (Rural).
6. Proceeding pursuant to such complaint, the respondent no. 3 found that an FIR has been registered against the petitioner on 01.08.2018 and a charge-sheet had been filed on 25.09.2018. Having found so, the respondent no. 3 removed the petitioner from government services while invoking the provisions of Rule 19(2) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1958’).
7. The petitioner at the outset argued that the order impugned is illegal having been passed in utter disregard of Principles of Natural Justice. He submitted that had he been given a notice or opportunity of hearing, he would have satisfied the respondents that the FIR in question came to be registered not only after the petitioner submitted application form but also after the appointment order was issued. He submitted that on 11.07.2018 the criminal complaint was filed by the complainant-his wife which was sent for investigation and a charge-sheet alleging offences under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code was filed on 21.06.2019, after the petitioner had joined the services on 29.09.2018.
8. While maintaining that the charge-sheet was filed after about a year of him having joined the services, it was argued that the charges levelled against him did not amount to moral turpitude, and the complaint in question was filed vindictively in order to settle the score as the matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and his wife got sour.
9. Petitioner highlighted that he has placed on record a copy of order dated 11.12.2019, alongwith his rejoinder which would reveal that the Judicial Magistrate, Pipar City, Jodhpur has acquitted him of the charges under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code after considering the entire evidence on record.
10. The petitioner further argued that the respondents’ actions of throwing the petitioner out of employment is arbitrary as there was no reason or rationale behind his removal, particularly when the criminal case against him had been decided in his favour.
11. Mr. Manish Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the respondents were justified in exercising powers under Rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1958, as the petitioner’s conduct disentitled him to remain in State services. Learned counsel submitted that in the light of Circular dated 28.03.2017, the petitioner was not entitled for the appointment.
12. Learned Additional Advocate General could not, however, satisfy the Court as to how an order, having serious repercussions such as dismissal/removal of an employee from the Government services can be passed without even issuing a notice to the concerned employee.
13. Heard the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General and perused the material available on record.
14. According to this Court, the writ petition in hands deserves to be allowed on the solitary ground of violation of prin
