Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner had sought to set aside an order whereby respondent had rejected his claim for the post of Constable. A Single Judge Bench of Jagmohan Bansal, J., observed that the respondent had intentionally and mischievously skipped Clause (c) of Rule 12.18(3) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 which was directly applicable to the present case. The police had not filed cancellation report or untraced report, however, investigating agency found the petitioner innocent in a criminal case and had filed supplementary challan disclosing the same. The Court calling the present case ‘a classic case of misuse of power and abuse of process of law’, imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the respondents.
Background
The petitioner applied for the post of Constable in 2020 pursuant to its advertisement and was issued admit card for the same. During the pendency of the selection process, an FIR was filed against him under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 66 and 66-C of Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’) in 2021. In 2023, the Staff Selection Commission recommended candidates which included the petitioner and thereafter, the respondent initiated the process of verification of antecedents, and he submitted verification cum-attestation form in which he disclosed about the FIR concerned.
The authority conducting verification did not think it appropriate to ascertain the actual status of FIR and mechanically informed that FIR was pending against the petitioner. The Trial Court vide order dated 26-2-2024 discharged the petitioner. The respondent, on one hand filed a report declaring him innocent and on the other hand, after order of the Trial Court, filed revision, which was still pending.
In 2024, the petitioner sought issuance of his appointment letter before this Court, which was disposed of with a direction to respondent to consider case of the petitioner in accordance with law. The respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner, thus, the petitioner again filed a petition before this Court, but the same was disposed of. The respondent again rejected the claim based on the examination done by Assistant District Attorney.
Thus, this petition was filed for the third time.
Analysis and Decision
The Court opined that the respondent did not independently examine applicability of Ravindra Kumar v. State of UP, (2024) 5 SCC 264 (‘Ravindra Kumar Case’) but it relied upon opinion of Assistant District Attorney when there was no direction to Assistant District Attorney to adjudicate the matter. Further, the Court observed that the respondent had grossly violated orders of this Court and attempted to deflect from his duty due to which third round of litigation could not have been obviated. The Court opined that the officers dealing with the present case despite repeated orders of this Court had shown reprehensible attitude just to stick to their opinion and it showed that they had scant regard for the orders of Constitutional Courts.
The Court stated that the respondent considered instructions of September 2024 whereas verification was conducted in October 2023 and the respondent was duty bound to consider applicable Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (‘the Rules’) but placed reliance on the instructions of Director General of Police.
The Court stated that the petitioner was not involved in any criminal case at the time of submitting the application for the post of Constable and he, in his verification cum-attestation form, duly disclosed the factum of FIR registered against him. The Court referred to the report of Superintendent of Police (‘SSP’) and opined that there was no application of mind and the said report was mechanically prepared.
The Court stated that the Reporting Authority was duty bound to ascertain present status because Rule 12.18 of the Rules required so and contemplated different situations arising out of FIR. The Court further noted that from the letter sent to SSP in 2023, which sought clarification over the status of FIR, it was clear that Commandant was aware that Director BOI, Punjab had asked SSP to discharge the petitioner.
The Court observed that the respondent had intentionally and mischievously skipped Clause (c) of Rule 12.18(3) of the Rules which was directly applicable to the case. The police had not filed cancellation report or untraced report, however, investigating agency found the petitioner innocent and filed supplementary challan disclosing the same.
The Court again relied on Ravindra Kumar Case (supra), wherein the Supreme Court had held that authority should consider nature of offence, timing and nature of the criminal case, over all consideration of the judgment of acquittal, nature of query in the verification form, socio-economic strata of the individual and other antecedents of the candidate. The Court stated that the respondent had not examined even a single aspect as mandated by the Supreme Court in the said case.
The Court opined that the respondent unnecessarily dragged the petitioner to multiple rounds of litigation and thus, allowed the petition by imposing cost of Rs 50,000. The Court directed the issue of the appointment letter within two weeks and stated that the petitioner was entitled to notional service benefits from the date his colleagues joined service.
[Surender v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 13263 of 2025, decided on 18-7-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Rajat Mor, Advocate
For the Respondents: Raman Sharma, Addl. A.G., Haryana
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
