Acquittal in a criminal case entitles the individual to the relief sought for, as established by legal precedents.

1. I have already dealt with a similar controversy at Srinagar in a writ petition titled Jahangir Ahmad Khanday v. State of J&K and others, being writ petition SWP No. 1811/2011, by a reasoned judgment dated 31.08.2012, followed by two judgements at Jammu in case titled Zulfakar Ahmad v. State and others (SWP No.232/2010), decided on 04.10.2012 and in case Naranjan Singh v. State and others (SWP No. 2253/2009), decided on 27.12.2012, holding that the writ petitions merit acceptance.

2. The brief facts of the case at hand are that advertisement notice was issued by the respondents inviting applications for selection/appointment against the post of Constables in IRP 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th battalions in the Jammu & Kashmir Police in the Districts of Jammu, Kathua and Samba. The petitioner, being eligible, applied along with all other candidates and on completion of the selection process, he came to be selected in District Jammu figuring at S. No. 122 in the select list.

3. Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that since he was allegedly involved in a criminal case, therefore, the respondents did not issue the formal appointment order in his favour and he was not allowed to join against the said post. The reason of not allowing the petitioner to join is the receipt of an adverse verification report, which revealed the petitioner’s involvement in FIR No. 08/2008 at Police Station, Bishnah, under sections 307//325/323/147/148 RPC and 4/25 of Arms Act. 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 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, 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.

4. Writ petition came up for consideration and in terms of order dated 18.05.2010, 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.

5. 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.

6. Learned appearing counsel for the petitioner has laid a motion wherein he has placed on record the order passed by the Learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, 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 offence, he cannot possibly be held to be suitable for appointment to the post of Constable, till he is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. It is relevant to extract paragraph 5 of the judgement, which r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document