224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT BABLU CHAUHAN STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present Mr. Ravinder Rana, Advocate, Mr. Sa * SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA 1. The challenge 13.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Bench whereby the Writ Petition i.e. CWP-23611 holding as under: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: BABLU CHAUHAN STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Mr. Ravinder Rana, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) The challenge in the present LPA passed by the learned Single Bench whereby the Writ Petition 23611-2012, preferred by the appellant holding as under:- “4. It was clarified that the candidate technical grounds in offences involving moral turpitude should also not be considered for appointment. The case of the petitioner was re-considered vide order dated 17th June, 2013 (Annex. R-III). The officer opined that the petitioner was involved in cases for offences under Section 392 IPC (Robbery) thrice and was acquitted by the court every time by giving benefit of doubt. It is mentioned that the petitioner has serious cases of property offences against him and seems to be a repeat offen not desirable to have such a person in the police force and therefore, his claim for allotment of constabulary number for the post of Constable was rejected by the respondents IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1455-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision:6thof May, 2025 ..…...Appellant(s) V/s. .....Respondent(s) SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA for the appellant. urabh Mohunta, Sr. DAG, Haryana. in the present LPA is to the judgment dated passed by the learned Single Bench whereby the Writ Petition preferred by the appellant, has been dismissed It was clarified that the candidates acquitted on technical grounds in offences involving moral turpitude should also not be considered for appointment. The case of considered vide order dated 17th III). The officer opined that the nvolved in cases for offences under Section 392 IPC (Robbery) thrice and was acquitted by the court every time by giving benefit of doubt. It is mentioned that the petitioner has serious cases of property offences against him and seems to be a repeat offender. It was thus not desirable to have such a person in the police force and therefore, his claim for allotment of constabulary number for the post of Constable was rejected by the respondents.” Suresh Kumar 2025.05.12 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1455-2018 (O&M) 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment passed by the Chandigarh and Others also where the post in question was that of to be appointed after he ha against him wherein he was 3. We have carefully considered the judgment appellant passed in command, we find that the facts of the said case the facts which have come out in the present case. 4. In the case before the Joginder Singh was a person who had applied for the post of C much before he was called for the interview acquitted in a criminal case registered against him on account of a family feud. The acquittal was an honorable acquittal circumstances, the Apex Court he Constable would be akin in law and allowed the Appeal. 5. In the present case, the facts are initiated vide advertisement dated the physical test wherein he was placed in the select list. Before he could FIRs were registered against him which are as under 2018 (O&M) Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandigarh and Others ; 2015(2) SCC 377 also where the post in question was that of Constable, to be appointed after he had been acquitted in against him wherein he was an accused. We have carefully considered the judgment appellant passed in Joginder Singh (Supra) , we find that the facts of the said case the facts which have come out in the present case. In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court Joginder Singh was a person who had applied for the post of C before he was called for the interview acquitted in a criminal case registered against him on account of a family feud. The acquittal was an honorable acquittal circumstances, the Apex Court held denying him would be akin to vicarious punishment in law and allowed the Appeal. In the present case, the facts are initiated vide advertisement dated 01.09.2008 and the appellant test on 21.05.2010 and was called for interview on 23.06.2011 wherein he was placed in the select list. Before he could FIRs were registered against him which are as under Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court in Joginder Singh Vs. U.T. of to submit that in the said case Constable, a person was allowed in the criminal case registered We have carefully considered the judgment relied on by the Joginder Singh (Supra) and with all humility at our , we find that the facts of the said case are distinguishable from the facts which have come out in the present case. Supreme Court, the appellant- Joginder Singh was a person who had applied for the post of Constable, but before he was called for the interview/medical examination, he was acquitted in a criminal case registered against him on account of a family feud. The acquittal was an honorable acquittal and in the said ld denying him appointment to the post of punishment which is not permissible In the present case, the facts are that the selection process was .09.2008 and the appellant had cleared on 21.05.2010 and was called for interview on 23.06.2011, wherein he was placed in the select list. Before he could be appointed, three FIRs were registered against him which are as under:- Suresh Kumar 2025.05.12 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1455-2018 (O&M) 1. 2. 3. 6. On account of material witnesses having turned hostile given benefit of doubt in the criminal trial and was acquitted of the said charges. Thus, we find that different from that of applied on facts of the case individually. 7. The post of Constable is a responsible post on which a person having immaculate character been registered after selection, it is apparent that the concerned individual has indulged in appointed as a Constable. Such person suitable for the post appointing authority has to see the suitability of that individual selection, if his antecedents detrimental to his appointment on a post, him the appointment. 8. Such a decision of the authorities as noticed by the learned Single Bench at the level of the D said to be wrongful or illegal. Offences of the nature under Section 392 of 2018 (O&M) 1. FIR No.190 dated 16.11.2010 registered under Sections 392/34 IPC, 25/54 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station Chhappar (Yamunanagar). 2. FIR No.178 dated 23.11.2010 registered under Sections 392/394 IPC, Police Station 3. FIR No.191 dated 25.11.2010 registered un 392/34 IPC, 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station Chhappar (Yamunanagar). On account of material witnesses having turned hostile given benefit of doubt in the criminal trial and was acquitted of the said s, we find that the facts of the present case being completely different from that of Joginder Singh (Supra) facts of the case individually. The post of Constable is a responsible post on which a person having immaculate character ought to be appointed. been registered after selection, it is apparent that the concerned individual has indulged into criminal activities after he knew that he is going to be appointed as a Constable. Such person, therefore, suitable for the post. While selection may be done by the selectin appointing authority has to see the suitability of that individual his antecedents are found to be of such a nature which would be detrimental to his appointment on a post, a decision can be taken to him the appointment. Such a decision of the authorities as noticed by the learned Single Bench at the level of the Director General of said to be wrongful or illegal. Offences of the nature under Section 392 of 0 dated 16.11.2010 registered under Sections 392/34 IPC, 25/54 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station .11.2010 registered under Sections 4 IPC, Police Station Barara. .11.2010 registered under Sections of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station On account of material witnesses having turned hostile, he was given benefit of doubt in the criminal trial and was acquitted of the said the facts of the present case being completely Joginder Singh (Supra). The law, thus, has to be The post of Constable is a responsible post on which a person ought to be appointed. If criminal cases have been registered after selection, it is apparent that the concerned individual activities after he knew that he is going to be , therefore, cannot be said to be fit or selection may be done by the selecting body, the appointing authority has to see the suitability of that individual, even after are found to be of such a nature which would be decision can be taken to deny Such a decision of the authorities as noticed by the learned eneral of Police, Haryana cannot said to be wrongful or illegal. Offences of the nature under Section 392 of Suresh Kumar 2025.05.12 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1455-2018 (O&M) the IPC for which he was alleged to have committed, amount the offences involving moral turpitude. 9. I impugned jud dismissed, rejecting the prayer of the appellant. 10. Al accordingly. May 6, 2025 Ess Kay Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 2018 (O&M) the IPC for which he was alleged to have committed, amount the offences involving moral turpitude. In view thereto, we do not find any reason to differ from the judgment passed by the learned Singh Bench and the appeal , rejecting the prayer of the appellant. All pending applications in this [SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA [MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Whether speaking / reasoned : Whether Reportable : the IPC for which he was alleged to have committed, amount the offences do not find any reason to differ from the gment passed by the learned Singh Bench and the appeal is , rejecting the prayer of the appellant. pending applications in this case are disposed of SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE [MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA] JUDGE : Yes / No : Yes / No Suresh Kumar 2025.05.12 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document