The acquittal of a candidate, based on benefit of doubt, in a case involving moral turpitude, does not automatically entitle them to employment. The appointing authority has the discretion to consider all relevant facts and decide on the continuation of the employee based on the standard of propriety and probity.

JUDGMENT :

Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the resolution dated 11.08.2017 of Full Court of the High Court of Sikkim recommending to withdraw the appointment of the petitioner made by previous resolution of the Full Court dated 05.07.2017 on the post of Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, and to challenge the appointment of respondent no.4 made in place of the petitioner based on the same resolution and vide Office Order dated 08.02.2018 on the same post, this petition has been filed.

2. The facts unfolded of the case are that an advertisement was issued by the High Court of Sikkim on 24.02.2017 inviting applications from the eligible and interested candidates to fill up three vacant posts of Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate (First Class) in the Cadre of Sikkim Judicial Service, as per Annexure P-9. The petitioner submitted his application form and appeared in the written test. He found place in the list of successful candidates as per notification dated 14.06.2017 and called for the interview. The petitioner appeared in the Viva Voce Test and found place in the Merit List at Sl.No.2 of the selected candidates published on 05.07.2017. As per the resolution dated 05.07.2017 of Full Court of the High Court of Sikkim, the name of the petitioner and others were recommended for appointment to the State Government for the post of Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate. After appointment, the Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms, Training, Public Grievances (DoPART), Government of Sikkim, vide letter dated 10.08.2017 informed to the Registrar General, High Court of Sikkim that one of the selected candidates, Shri Tara Prasad Sharma (petitioner) was found involved in Police Case No. 24/2012 registered by P.S. Sadar on 28.02.2012 under Section 420/468/471 of IPC, though acquitted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, East Gangtok, vide judgment dated 30.04.2016. The letter of DoPART was placed before the Full Court. The Full Court in its Meeting held on 11.08.2017, after examining all materials, unanimously resolved that the conduct of the petitioner is not free from the element of doubt, thus, he may not be given the assignment of administration of justice and recommended to withdraw the previous resolution dated 05.07.2017 with respect to appointment of the petitioner to the post of Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate. In furtherance thereto his services has been dispensed with and vide Office Order dated 08.02.2018 the respondent no.4 was directed to be appointed on the said post.

3. The petitioner present in-person contended that he was acquitted from the charge levelled against him under Section 468 of the IPC vide judgment dated 30.04.2016. On receiving the offer of appointment vide Memorandum dated 03.08.2017 he submitted his attestation form on 04.08.2017 specifying the details of the criminal case and its result. He has urged, it is not a case of concealment of material facts, as he has disclosed the details of criminal case and its result acquitting him in the attestation form. Being candidate of merit as per the resolution of the Full Court dated 05.07.2017 he had rightly been appointed by the State Government. Merely registering a criminal case in which he was acquitted by the Court, may not debar him from the appointment as Civil Judge. The referred resolution dated 11.08.2017 recommending to withdraw his appointment is unjust, arbitrary that too without affording due opportunity of hearing and also contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Reliance has been placed by him on the judgments of Joginder Singh vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others reported in (2015) 2 SCC 377, Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, Mohammed Imran vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2019) 17 SCC 696 to substantiate the contentions.

4. On the other hand, respondent no.3 has filed the counter-affidavit