Point of Law: Section 12 of Act of 1958 reads Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction.

ORDER :

I.A. No. 1/2023:

For the reasons stated, the application seeking early listing of the matter is allowed and the writ petition is heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15899/2019:

1. The petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, calling in question the order dated 23.08.2018 (Annex.9), whereby his representation for considering his case for appointment has been rejected.

2. Narrated in brief, the facts appertain are that the petitioner vied for the post of Junior Accountant pursuant to advertisement dated 16.04.2015. The petitioner stood meritorious in the process of recruitment and an appointment order dated 30.06.2017 came to be issued in his favour.

3. During the course of verification of credentials, the petitioner disclosed the factum of pendency of a criminal case against him pursuant to FIR No. 197 dated 11.12.2015 alleging offence under sections 4 and 5 of Rajasthan Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1970”).

4. On finding petitioner’s involvement in the criminal case, the respondents vide order dated 12.07.2017, kept petitioner’s appointment in abeyance.

5. Feeling aggrieved of such decision, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court (being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14305/2017), which came to be disposed of by a Coordinate Bench vide order dated 24.07.2018. By way of order dated 24.07.2018, the respondents were directed to consider petitioner’s representation in light of judgment dated 21.07.2016 of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of Indian and Others, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20525/2011.

6. Petitioner’s representation in furtherance of above order dated 24.07.2018, came to be rejected by the respondent No. 3 per-viam order dated 23.08.2018.

7. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition laying challenge to the order dated 12.07.2017 (Annex.6) so also the order dated 23.08.2018 (Annex.9).

8. The basic premise on which the petitioner has approached this Court is that subsequent to rejection of petitioner’s representation dated 23.08.2018, the criminal proceedings pending against him (being Case No. 235/2016) have culminated in the manner that the petitioner having accepted the charges levelled against him, has been held guilty of those offences but has been extended the benefit of sections 4/5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1958”).

9. The petitioner argued that the action of the respondents in cancelling his candidature is illegal and contrary to facts, inasmuch as, the allegations levelled against him, even if presumed to be correct, were trivial in nature. He pointed out that he was alleged to be a member of mob, which had purportedly disrupted the electricity supply during a strike called by the union.

10. It was argued that the petitioner had accepted his guilt to buy peace and get rid of unending prosecution in a hope that he will be given benefit of the Act of 1958. He nevertheless argued that his conviction for the offences under sections 4/5 of the Rajasthan Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1970 does not amount to moral turpitude.

11. Without prejudice to above, the petitioner argued that vide order dated 14.01.2019, passed in Criminal Case (No. 235/2016) the petitioner has been given the benefit of section 4/5 of the Act of 1958 and by virtue of provision contained in section 12 of the Act of 1958, the disqualification (if any) arising out of such conviction stands wiped out. The respondents were required to allow the petitioner to join the services, the petitioner emphasised.

12. In support of his contention that the petitioner’s guilt or conviction does not amount to moral turpitude, the petitioner invited Court’s attention towards the definition of moral turpitude given in section 2 (f) of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007, which reads thus:

(f) “moral turpitude” means involvement i