Pending criminal charges cannot bar government employment unless proven guilty. This holds especially true where prior judgments emphasize fair trial rights in such appointments.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN MONGA, J.

1. The petitioner herein is before this Court seeking quashing of an order dated 08.03.2024 (Annex.8) and a report dated 01.03.2024 (Annex.11), and for issuance of directions to the respondents to grant a suitable appointment forthwith by declaring the circular dated 04.12.2019 (Annex.9) illegal to the extent of debarring the petitioner from seeking appointment in government service.

2. The facts leading to this writ petition are summarized as follows:-

2.1. The petitioner, being eligible, applied and participated in the recruitment process for the post of Lower Division Clerk in the year 2013. However, the selection process was delayed for years and finally on 04.10.2022, a provisional list was issued. The petitioner was shown at serial number 68.

2.2. During the document verification, the petitioner informed about pending criminal case under Sections 498A, 406, 323, and 494 of the IPC arising out of matrimonial dispute with his wife. After the verification, petitioner was declared ineligible, citing the pending criminal case under Sections 498A and 323 based on a State Government circular dated 04.12.2019. The petitioner challenged this decision by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17771/2022, which was allowed by the Court. The Court directed the respondent to form a committee and reconsider the petitioner's case, considering the judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India.

2.3. Following the Court's order, the petitioner’s candidature was rejected again, citing the same circular without providing a justified reason.

2.4. Furthermore, upon reviewing the committee’s report, the petitioner discovered that the committee was not constituted as per the Court's direction. And, the committee did not even consider the Avtar Singh’s judgment. After receiving the committee’s report on 25.07.2024, the petitioner has filed this writ petition without delay.

3. 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.

4. It transpires that despite so many opportunities given in the past on 14.08.2024, 11.09.2024, 25.09.2024 and 16.10.2024, no reply has been filed. In fact, the respondents were cautioned vide order dated 06.11.2024 passed by this Court, that in case, reply is not filed before the next date of hearing, cost of Rs. 25,000/- will be imposed. The said order dated 06.11.2024 being apposite is reproduced herein below:-

“Issue notice.

Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav, appearing on behalf of Ms. Neelam Sharma, AGC, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Service is thus dispensed with.

Post it on 21.11.2022, to be shown in the supplementary cause-list.

It transpires that the matter has been taken up as many as 9 times in past and despite directions issued by this Court, reply has not been filed.

Last opportunity is granted to file reply. If the same is not filed before next date, it shall then be entertained on payment of cost of Rs. 25,000/-.”

Apropos, no reply was filed and further opportunity for same is being sought yet again. I do not find any justification for granting further time in view of order dated 06.11.2024, ibid.

Right to file the reply is, therefore, closed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this second round of litigation before this Court seeking appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk, on which he has otherwise been eligible and meritorious as per the select list. However, the pendency of a matrimonial dispute between him and his wife has resulted in a criminal trial under Section 498-A read with Section 323 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE