2021 Supreme(All) 406

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJAY BHANOT, J.
Riyasat Ali - Appellant
Versus
State of U P and Others - Respondent
WRIT - A No. 8313 of 2020
Decided On : 26-03-2021

Point of Law: Post of Constable in Police - Recruitment process - Criminal cases was in no way connected with each other. Criminal cases were instituted by different parties for separate offences. Multiplicity of cases manifested repetitive criminal conduct and assumed significance.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 307,323,324,504,506 - Constitution of India,1950 – Article 314 - Appointment to post of Constable - Selection process - Posts in U.P. Police - Petitioner to approach authority concerned, i.e., respondent no. 4, in respect of his grievance raised before this Court, within a period of two weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall be at liberty to annex all materials in support of his claim. In case such material is placed before the authority concerned, the same shall be examined, in accordance with law, and keeping in view the law laid down by Apex Court in Avtar Singh (supra). The required consideration shall be made by the authority concerned within a period of three months thereafter - whether to allow a person with doubtful integrity to work in the department - whether the case was pending or he was acquitted - whether a selected candidate is suitable to the post - whether he has been completely exonerated in the case because even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force.

Finding of the court: Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information - While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information - We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives - Examining the controversy in the present case in the conspectus of the aforesaid legal position, what is important to note is the fact that the view of this Court has depended on the nature of offence charged and the result of the same. The mere fact of an acquittal would not suffice but rather it would depend on whether it is a clean acquittal based on total absence of evidence or in the criminal jurisprudence requiring the case to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, that parameter having not been met, benefit of doubt has been granted to the accused - some prosecution witnesses had testified to the role of the petitioner in the criminal offence. This was consistent with the prosecution case in F.I.R. However, in view of the contrary depositions by other witnesses, the peittioner was found entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the learned trial court acquitted the accused (petitioner) by granting him benefit of the doubt.

Result: Writ petition dismissed