The appointing Authority must consider the antecedents of a candidate acquitted in a criminal case and conduct a detailed probe before making a decision.

ORDER :

S.A. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. This petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 30/3/2017 (Annexure P/1), whereby candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Constable (GD) has been rejected.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that petitioner had applied for the post of Constable (GD) and participated in the process of recruitment. After selection in the written examination, it was found that the petitioner was involved in criminal case registered against him at Crime No. 634/2008 for the offences punishable under sections 323, 325 and 504 read with 34 of the IPC. However, petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 8/4/2009 on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. This fact regarding acquittal was placed before the respondents but the same was not properly considered. Ultimately, the claim of the petitioner was declined on 13/11/2013 vide order (Annexure P/4). Being aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No. 188/2014 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 14/2/2014 with liberty to the petitioner to prefer a representation, which in turn, was to be decided within sixty days therefrom. In compliance of the aforesaid order, petitioner moved a representation, but the same was turned down by the respondents in a mechanical manner without application of mind only on the basis of presumption that the charges against the petitioner were those of moral turpitude. Being aggrieved, the petitioner again traveled to this Court in W.P. No. 4237/2014 which was disposed of vide order dated 27/10/2016, with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Constable (GD), but the same has again been rejected by the order impugned, aggrieved whereof, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that due to acquittal of the petitioner, all the charges leveled against him got washed off. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that there is no previous history of the petitioner being involved in any crime, which would have led the employer draw a conclusive finding that the petitioner is not fit for Government job.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that there is no other criminal case against the petitioner nor it is shown that the petitioner is involved in any other case. As such, the respondents ought to have made a deeper probe as to the past of the petitioner, which as apparent from the impugned order, has not been done.

5. Learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (Supra), Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Others Vs. Pradeep Kumar and another passed in Civil Appeal No. 67/2018 (SC) dated 08/01/2018 and order dated 12/01/2018 of this Court in the case of Ashutosh Pawar Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Another (Writ Petition No. 5865/2016) in support of his contention. Learned Government Advocate has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police New Delhi and another Vs. Mehar Singh [(2013) 7 SCC 685] in support of his contention. It is further submitted that even though, the petitioner has been acquitted from all the charges, it was still within the competence of the appointing Authority to have taken into consideration the antecedents of the petitioner, as it was because of his involvement in the crime of moral turpitude, the decision was taken to cancel his candidature.

6. Heard counsel for the both the parties.

7. In Avtar Singh (supra), it is held:

"38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus:

38.1 Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest,