An acquittal restores an individual's status as a law-abiding citizen, and denial of employment based on non-honourable acquittal is unjust.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner herein is assailing an order dated 13.12.2021 (Annex.11) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, vide which his candidature for the post of Constable pursuant to an advertisement dated 04.12.2019, was rejected.

2. Succinctly speaking, relevant facts, as pleaded in the petition are as follows:

2.1. The Respondent Department issued an advertisement dated 04.12.2019 inviting applications for appointments on the 773 posts of Constable (GD) and Constable Driver in various districts, The petitioner, being eligible, also applied for the same for District Sirohi under the ST category (TSP).

2.2. He successfully passed the written examination held on 08.11.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for the physical efficiency test, which was held on 10.04.2021. The petitioner cleared the physical efficiency test as well.

2.3. In the interregnum, after the issuance of the advertisement, an FIR was registered against the petitioner on 11.04.2020 (Annex.7) for alleged offences under Sections 143 & 323 IPC. Subsequently, a challan was filed against the petitioner, and after the trial, the petitioner was acquitted vide a judgment dated 31.08.2021 (Annex.8).

2.4. Meanwhile, by order dated 18.04.2021 (Annex.9), the petitioner was called for document verification. Notably, the petitioner had disclosed the information about the registration of the case before and during the document verification. However, despite this disclosure, when the petitioner was not granted appointment, the petitioner submitted a representation on 20.09.2021 (Annex.10).

2.5. Notwithstanding, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected by an office order dated 13.12.2021 (Annex.11). Hence, this petition.

3. The stand taken by the respondents in their reply inter alia is that in his application form in the column "Whether any FIR has ever been lodged against you," the petitioner responded by a “NO”.

3.1. Also, it is only at the time of document verification, the petitioner disclosed the particulars of the criminal case against him. He thus indulged in concealment prior thereto at the time of applying for the job. Accordingly, as per para 8 of the advertisement and Circular No. 1300 dated 28.03.2017, the matter was forwarded to the headquarters for consideration by the department's committee. It was decided, vide order dated 26.07.2021, that the petitioner was not fit for appointment to the post of constable under Rule 13(2) of the Rules of 1989, as a criminal case was pending against the petitioner.

3.2 After trial, the learned Court below, by order dated 31.08.2021, though acquitted the petitioner, but not honorably. Rather, he was acquitted due to lack of evidence. Therefore, petition deserves to be dismissed as it is devoid of merit.

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the case file. Rival arguments have been addressed on the lines of the respective pleadings of the parties.

5. In sum and substance, what boils down for adjudication lies in a very narrow compass i.e.

(A) Whether the petitioner is disentitled to seek benefit of his performance despite his acquittal in the criminal proceedings owing to which his candidature was withheld?

(B) Whether the petitioner indulged in any concealment overt or covert at the time of filling up of his application form for the post in question pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.12.2019?

6. Adverting to the second question first i.e. whether or not there is any concealment;

6.1 The answer to the said question is not far too seek in view of the specific undisputed averment contained in the petition that the advertisement was issued on 04.12.2019 and the last date of filling up the application form for the post in question was 20.01.2020 and the FIR was registered against the petitioner on 11.04.2020 for the alleged offences under Section 143 and 323 of IPC. Clearly the chronology is self-revealing and ref