Back
2012 Supreme(J&K) 444
JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
Jahangir Ahmad Khanday -Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. -Resopndent
SWP No. 1811/2011 & CMP No. 2981/2011
Decided On : 31-08-2012
Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai for the petitioner.
Mr. A. M. Magray, Sr. AAG, for the respondents.
The judgment emphasizes that while candidates involved in criminal cases may not be suitable for appointment until acquitted, minor indiscretions made by young people should be condoned, and individuals should be reformed instead of being branded as criminals for life.
Headnote:
Constable Appointment - Allegations of Criminal Offences - State of West Bengal & ors. v. S. Nazrul Islam, Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar, Narinder Kumar Sharma v. State and others, Bilal Ahmad Parra v. State and others - The court discussed the petitioner's entitlement to appointment and right to join in view of subsequent acquittal in a criminal case. The court referred to relevant judgments and highlighted the principle that a candidate involved in a criminal offence cannot be considered suitable for appointment until acquitted. However, the court also emphasized the need to condone minor indiscretions made by young people and to reform individuals instead of branding them as criminals for life.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for the post of Constable but was not allowed to join due to allegations of criminal offences. After being acquitted in the criminal case, the petitioner sought appointment and the court considered the entitlement to join.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, having been acquitted of the charges, was entitled to the relief sought for by him and directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to join as a Constable.
Issues: Entitlement to appointment and right to join in view of subsequent acquittal in a criminal case.
Ratio Decidendi: A candidate involved in a criminal offence cannot be considered suitable for appointment until acquitted. However, minor indiscretions made by young people should be condoned, and individuals should be reformed instead of being branded as criminals for life.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to join as a Constable in view of the acquittal and the petitioner's entitlement to the relief sought.
2. The petitioner was directed to report to respondent No. 4 along with his original testimonials. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner submitted all the relevant documents before the competent authority and was expecting to receive orders for undergoing the requisite training course. It is contended that, despite lapse of about six months, the petitioner was not allowed to join the duties and on enquiries being made by him as to the reason that he was not allowed to join, he was informed that the reason was the receipt of adverse verification report, which revealed the petitioner’s involvement in FIR No. 122/2010 at Police Station, Qazigund, under sections 354, 427, 323, 336, 147 and 447 RPC. It is submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the said FIR are false and frivolous and that the case is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Qazigund and no witness has deposed against the petitioner so far, which substantiates that the allegations leveled against him are false and frivolous. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the said FIR and the offences alleged against the petitioner cannot be made a ground for refusal/denial of the appointment to the petitioner.
3. Writ petition came up for consideration and in terms of order dated 20.08.2011, notice was issued to the respondents for filing the objections, if any, and in the meantime, respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to join against the post of Constable against which he stands selected.
4. Respondents have filed the reply and contested the averments made in the writ petition and averred that the petitioner was found involved in the FIR supra and that is the reason for not issuing appointment order in favour of the petitioner.
5. Respondents had also questioned the interim direction passed by this Court by medium of Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 42/2012), which was allowed and the interim direction passed by this Court on 20.08.2011 was set aside. However, while allowing the Letters Patent Appeal, it was observed by the Hon’ble Division Bench that any observation made shall not be considered as an expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy and the Writ Court shall proceed to decide the issue without being influenced by the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench.
6. Mr. Jahangir Iqbal, learned appearing counsel for the petitioner has laid a motion wherein he has placed on record the order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Qazigund, whereby he stands acquitted in the FIR, which is subject matter of the whole controversy.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Writ petition is admitted to hearing. In the given facts and in view of the above said reasons, I deem it proper to take the writ petition for final disposal at this very stage to which course the learned counsel for the parties have no objection.
8. The core question involved in the writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment and has right to be allowed to join in view of the subsequent development viz., acquittal in the FIR supra. Admittedly, the appointment order was withheld and the petitioner was not allowed to join because of his involvement in the said FIR. Now that the trial has come to an end and the petitioner stands acquitted of the charges leveled against him, he is entitled to the relief sought for by him.
9. The apex Court recently in a judgement titled State of West Bengal & ors. v. S. Nazrul Islam reported in 2011 AIR SCW 6558 has held that if a Constable is involved in any criminal of
