2026:HHC:26746 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.50 of 2019 Decided on: 02.07.2026 Amit Jaryal ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes For the petitioner: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sat Prakash, and Mr. Ruchirangad Singh, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Vishav Deep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of present petition has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(a) That the impugned order dated 18.3.2019 (Annexure A-6) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (b) That after quashing the impugned order dated, the order 23.6.2018 (Annexure A-4) may also kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to issue appointment letter to the applicant to the post of Driver in the respondent department forthwith.” 2. The petitioner in pursuance of the recruitment 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:26746 notice dated 01.07.2017 (Annexure A-1) issued by respondent No.2 had applied for the post of Constable (Driver) (Male) in District Chamba, H.P. After appearing in the written examination conducted by the respondents- State, he was provisionally selected, as evident from (Annexure A-2) for the post of Police Constable. However, the appointment of the petitioner was withheld due to the reason that he was named in an FIR No.125 of 2017, dated 08.11.2017, under Sections 341, 323, 332, 353, 506, 147, 149, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) registered at Police Station Chowari, District Chamba, H.P., which FIR was under investigation, and due to this reason, he could not be offered the appointment. His claim was rejected vide communication dated 23.06.2018 (Annexure A-4) mainly on the ground that as per 15.2 of Recruitment procedure, in case of a candidate against whom investigation or trial is pending, the offer of appointment may be held in abeyance until he is cleared during investigation of trial, whichever is earlier. 3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order dated 23.06.2018 (Annexure A-4), had approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short 3 2026:HHC:26746 ‘the Tribunal’) by filing OA No.3582 of 2018, titled, Amit Jaryal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, which came to be disposed of on 26.06.2018, with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider his case as per the order dated 25.03.2003, passed by the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.2889/2000, titled Anil Kumar V/s State of H.P. & Ors., Latest HLJ 2003 (HP) 331, and in case the petitioner is similarly situate as above, benefit of the said order, if the same has attained finality/implemented, shall also be extended to him along with consequential benefits, if any, as per law within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an Miscellaneous Application No.1978 of 2018, bearing M.A. No.1978 of 2018 in the aforementioned Original Application, before the Tribunal which was disposed of on 30.08.2018 by the Tribunal, directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police and others Versus Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644, and decide the case accordingly. In sequel to the direction given by the Tribunal, 4 2026:HHC:26746 respondent No.2 rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Constable, vide order dated 18.03.2019 (Annexure A-6), noticing that the petitioner as constable is governed by the Procedure for Recruitment of Constable in H.P. Police Department in Appendix-12.12 A drafted under Section 144(4) of H.P. Police Act 2007, whereas when the judgment in Anil Kumar case was passed, there was no Appendix-12.12 A in existence. Since the Tribunal did not refer to the Police Act /Police Rules, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment. Secondly, as per rule 15.2 of Appendix-12.12 A in case a candidate against whom investigation or trial is pending, the offer of appointment may be held in abeyance until he is cleared during investigation or trial, whichever is earlier. 4. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the rejection of his claim and not offering him the appointment as Constable (Driver) has approached this Court on the grounds that the petitioner had qualified the written as well as physical test conducted by the respondents and was accordingly selected as such, but on the basis of registration of an FIR, offer of appointment has been declined. Merely registration of an FIR cannot debar the 5 2026:HHC:26746 petitioner from getting employment as nothing has been found adverse against him rather the aforesaid FIR was registered on a political rivalry during the election process of the State Assembly, whereas the petitioner has nothing to do with such instance. It has further been averred that the petitioner was not even aware about the registration of FIR against him as he was never called by the police for investigation and further the rejection of claim is illegal and merely on the basis of presumption and thus sought quashing of the orders and direction to the respondents to offer him appointment to the post of Driver. 5. The respondents filed reply to the petition and raised preliminary submissions that the present petition is just an abuse of process of law and further the petitioner is estopped from filing the petition on account of his own conduct, omissions, commissions, acquiescence and concealment of material facts. It has further been averred that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hand and has withheld the material facts. It has also been averred that as per the directions given by the Tribunal, the case of the petitioner was considered and it was found that during the year 2017, he was provisionally selected to the 6 2026:HHC:26746 post of Police Constable. However, during verification of his character and antecedents, it was found that a case FIR No.125/2017 dated 08.11.2017 under Sections 323, 332, 353, 147, 149, 506 of IPC, has been registered at Police Station Chowari, Distt. Chamba, H.P., and the same is pending trial before the Court of JMIC Dalhousie and consequently, appointment was not given to him. On further examination of the case, it was revealed that the selection of the petitioner as constable in State of Himachal Pradesh is governed by the Procedure for Recruitment of Constable in H.P. Police Department in Appendix-12.12 A, drafted under Section 144(4) of H.P. Police Act 2007. In the case of Anil Kumar, in the year 2003, the Appendix-12.12 A was not in existence and the Tribunal had not referred to the HP Police Act 2007. It has also been averred that as per Appendix-12.12 A, in case a candidate, against whom investigation or trial is pending, the offer of appointment may be held in abeyance, until he is cleared during investigation or trial, whichever is earlier. Such a candidate shall not be deemed to have become overage on this account alone. The Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.10613 of 2014, titled, State of M.P. & Ors. vs. Parvej Khan, has 7 2026:HHC:26746 held that the candidate to be recruited to the police service must be worthy of confidence and must be a person of utmost rectitude and must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not be fit in his category, even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he will be completely exonerated. Keeping in view the above, the case of the petitioner was rejected for appointment as Constable. 6. The petitioner filed an application on 10.12.2024 for placing on record, the copy of judgment dated 31.08.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P. in Case Registration No. 83/2015, titled, State of H.P. versus Abhimanyu Jaryal and others (petitioner as respondent No.2/accused) passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the petitioner has been acquitted of the alleged offences registered in FIR No.125/2017. The application was allowed on 01.05.2025 and the judgment has been taken on record. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 8. Before taking note of the submissions advanced 8 2026:HHC:26746 by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be relevant to quote the order dated 23.06.2018 (Annexure A-4), whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment came to be rejected, which is as under:- “OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT CHAMBA (H.P) No. 21460 Dated 23/06/18 To Sh. Suraj Singh Jaryal, Village Jujad, PO Patka PS Chowari, Tehsil Sihunta, District Chamba, HP. Subject:- Provided the Rejection Letter in respct of Amit Jaryal. Sir, Please refer to your letter of dated 23/06/18 on the subject cited above. In this regard, it is intimated that the Character and antecedents verification of Amit Jaryal was conducted through SHO PS Chowari and as per report of SHO PS Chowari, a case FIR No 125/17 dated 18.11.17 u/s 341, 323, 332, 353, 506, 34, 147, 149 has been registered against Amit Jaryal, which is under investigation. As per letter received from the Commandant, 2nd IRBn Sakoh in this office vide their office letter No. OHC.12(Recruitment- Constables)/18- 17802 dated 23/06/18, Amit Jaryal S/o Suraj Singh, Village Simbal Ghatta, PO Tundi PS Chowari, tehsil Bhattiyat, district Chamba, HP has not being issued offer of appointment (as per PHQ directions letter No. P- II(3)Rect(Consts) (1005M+195FM)2017-24013 dated 21/06/17) as case is under investigation against Amit Jaryal. As per 15.2 of Recruitment procedure: "In case of a candidate against whom investigation or trial is pending the offer of appointment may be held in abeyance until he is cleared during investigation or trial, whichever is 9 2026:HHC:26746 earlier". This is for your information please. -Sd- Superintendent of Police District Chamba (HP)” 9. A perusal of the order clearly reveals that as per 15.2 of Recruitment procedure, in case of a candidate against whom investigation or trial is pending the offer of appointment may be held in abeyance until he is cleared during investigation or trial, whichever is earlier. From this only one inference can be drawn that till the time the investigation or trial is complete, the offer of appointment shall be kept in abeyance. However, when a person is acquitted of the offence, he should be offered the appointment. Before coming to the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court, it would be relevant to quote the preliminary submission No.5 raised by the respondents, wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner had submitted an application under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of case FIR No.125 of 2017, but the same came to be dismissed by learned JMIC Dalhousie. Instead of preferring the revision petition against the order, whereby the application of the petitioner came to be rejected, the respondent-State filed a revision petition against the 10 2026:HHC:26746 dismissal of the application seeking withdrawal of the FIR, which unfortunately came to be dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, on 06.05.2019. The relevant part of the submission reads as under:- “5. That as per record applicant had submitted application u/s 321 of Cr.P.C for withdrawal of case FIR No. 125/2017 but the same was dismissed by the Ld. JMIC Dalhousie. The state had filed revision against the order of the Ld. JMIC Dalhousie and the same has been dismissed by the Ld. Session Judge Chamba vide order dated 06.05.2019. Now, the case has been fixed for hearing on 6.7.2019 before the Court of Ld. JMIC Dalhousie.” 10. From a perusal of the above submissions, even the State-Government was of the view that the petitioner has falsely been roped in the case and due to that reason, it had preferred the revision petition against the dismissal of the application seeking withdrawal of the case FIR No.125 of 2017, on the basis of which, the appointment order could not be issued in favour of the petitioner for the post of Police Constable, though he was selected and was in merit. 11. It is not known that on what basis respondent No.2 had rejected the claim subsequently vide office order dated 18.03.2019, when it did not keep the appointment order in abeyance, though has taken specific note of condition No.15.2 of Appendix-12.12 A, which clearly states 11 2026:HHC:26746 that in case of a candidate against whom investigation or trial is pending, the offer of appointment may be held in abeyance until he is cleared during investigation of trial, whichever is earlier. It has also been noticed that such a candidate shall not be deemed to have become overage on this account alone, meaning thereby that even if a candidate becomes overage the offer of appointment cannot be withheld on that account. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sandeep Kumar's case (supra) has succinctly dealt with the issue and held that the respondents must also see the age of the candidate. At the young age, people often commit indiscretions and such indiscretions can often be condoned. After all youth will be youth, they are not expected to behave in a mature manner as older people, and approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people, rather than to brand them as criminals to the rest of their lives. The relevant paras are reproduced hereinunder:- “8. 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 12 2026:HHC:26746 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. 9. In this connection, we may refer to the character "Jean Valjean" in Victor Hugo's novel Les Miserables, in which for committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his whole life. The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life.” 13. In the present case, once as per the order dated 23.06.2018, the respondents had taken the decision to keep the appointment of the petitioner in abeyance, he should have been offered the appointment immediately after the acquittal, once this fact was in the notice of the respondents. If the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court in case Registration No.83/2015, titled, State of HP vs. Abhimanyu Jaryal and others, (Annexure A-15) is perused, petitioner (accused No.2) has been acquitted by the learned trial Court observing that as per the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the case was registered against them due to political enmity and they have falsely been implicated in the matter and the Court after considering the said aspect had acquitted the petitioners of the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, 341, 506 read with Sections 149 of IPC and under 13 2026:HHC:26746 Sections 147 and 148 of IPC. In addition to this, once the State Government was also of the view that a false case was registered against the petitioner, which is evident from the fact that at one point of time when the application filed by the petitioner for withdrawal of case FIR No.125 of 2017, came to be rejected, the State Government had filed the revision petition clearly suggests that the State Government was also of the view that false case lodged against the petitioner and other accused was politically motivated. Unfortunately, the petition instituted by the State Government came to be rejected in the year 2019 and had the FIR lodged against the petitioner been allowed to be withdrawn in the year 2019, the petitioner ought to have been offered the appointment at that relevant time. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravindra Kumar versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2024) 5 SCC 264, has again dealt with the issue regarding non-disclosure of the criminal case by the selected candidate and held that non-disclosure cannot be fatal. In this case even the earlier judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sandeep Kumar (supra) has been considered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the nature of the offence; the 14 2026:HHC:26746 timing and nature of criminal case; the overall consideration of judgment of acquittal; the nature of query in application/verification form; the contents of character verification report; the socio-economic strata of the individual applying; the other antecedents of the candidates; the nature of consideration and the contents of the cancellation/termination order are some of the crucial aspects which should enter the judicial verdict in adjudging suitability and in determining the nature of relief to be ordered. After considering the matter in detail had given the directions to the respondents to appoint the appellant in service on the post of Constable for which he was selected pursuant to his participation in reference to the recruitment Notification dated 20.01.2004. However, it was made clear that he will not be entitled for the arrears of salary for the period during which he has not served the force. The decision passed in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471, has also been considered. 15. The petitioner has not placed on record any material and there is no averment even in the application filed for placing on record additional documents, that he was not doing any work after declining him offer of 15 2026:HHC:26746 appointment to the post of Police Constable. Since the petitioner has not worked, he is not entitled for any remunerations. 16. The action on the part of the respondents in not offering the appointment to the petitioner is also illegal, arbitrary as well as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner once having been selected cannot be denied the appointment simply on the basis of an FIR lodged against him, which has ultimately resulted into acquittal of the petitioner. This Court cannot even ignore the fact that the respondents-State had been taking the pain to withdraw the FIR and it was only for the reason that the State-Government was also of the view that injustice is being caused to the petitioner and other persons, who have been named in the FIR, which could be definitely on account of political rivalry. Thus, the impugned orders, whereby the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected to offer him appointment as Police Constable is untenable in law. 17. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and impugned order(s) dated 23.06.2018 (Annexure A-4) and 18.03.2019 (Annexure A-6) are quashed and set aside, with 16 2026:HHC:26746 a direction to the respondents to offer the appointment to the petitioner as Police Constable from the date when the other persons have been appointed, with seniority and other service benefits, except the monetary benefits. The respondents are directed to offer the appointment to the petitioner notionally till expiry of three months from today. In case the petitioner is not offered the appointment within three months from today, the respondents-State shall pay the salary to him from today till offering appointment to him. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 02 nd July , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge