Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Babbal Singh S/O Shri Ratan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 971/2022
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11890/2017
Babbal Singh S/o Shri Ratan Singh, aged About 27 Years,
Resident Of Village And Post Sonkh, Tehsil Kathumar, District
Alwar (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, through its Secretary, Home
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director General of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Superintendent of Police, Alwar (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akshit Gupta on behalf of
Mr. Vigyan Shah
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samee Khan on behalf of
Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Judgment
Reportable
RESERVED ON:- 05/08/2025
PRONOUNCED ON:- 13/08/2025
Per, HON'BLE MR. SANJEET PUROHIT, J:
1. The present special appeal (writ) is preferred assailing the
validity and propriety of the judgment dated 22.04.2022 passed by
the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by
the appellant-petitioner, challenging the order impugned dated
30.05.2017 rejecting the candidature of the appellant-petitioner
for recruitment to the post of Constable (General) on account of
registration of criminal case, was dismissed.
The facts germane to the present appeal are as under:-
2. Factual Matrix:-
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 10:10:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (2 of 16) [SAW-971/2022]
2.1 Appellant-Petitioner in his writ petition has stated that the
advertisement dated 28.09.2012 was issued by the Office of
Director General of Police, Headquarter Jaipur, inviting applications
for the posts of Constable (General) and Constable (Driver). The
appellant-petitioner being eligible and aspirant has applied for the
post of Constable (General).
2.2 The recruitment process was to be held in two stages i.e.
written examination (held on 06.01.2013) and physical test. The
appellant-petitioner cleared both the said stages and his name was
shown at Serial No.156 in the merit list issued by the respondent-
Department. It was contended that in spite of securing the merit
position, the appointment was not granted to the appellant-
petitioner on the ground that a Criminal Case No.23/285/2007
State Vs. Dinesh and Ors, was registered against the appellant-
petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 323, 451, 325/34
IPC, however in the said case, the appellant-petitioner was
acquitted by the competent criminal court vide order dated
09.03.2010 by way of compromise between the parties.
2.3 Challenging the rejection of his candidature, the appellant-
petitioner earlier preferred writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.3684/2017 before this Court and the same was
disposed off vide order dated 28.03.2017, directing the appellant-
petitioner to file a representation, which was to be considered and
decided by the respondent-authority.
2.4 The respondent-authority vide its order dated 30.05.2017
has rejected the said representation while referring to the Circular
No.1300 dated 28.03.2017.
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 10:10:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (3 of 16) [SAW-971/2022]
2.5 Challenging the said rejection order dated 30.05.2017, the
writ petition was filed by the appellant-petitioner.
3. Reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of respondent-
departments, Justifying the order impugned dated 30.05.2017. It
was stated that as a matter of fact, two FIRs were registered
against the appellant-petitioner i.e. (i) FIR No.181/2007 for
offence punishable under Sections 323, 451, 325/34 IPC in which
the appellant-petitioner was acquitted by the judgment dated
09.03.2010 on the basis of compromise between the parties. (ii)
FIR No.173/2013 for offence punishable under Section 366 IPC
wherein the final report was submitted by the Investing Agency on
03.09.2014. The respondents submitted that apart from the
registration of criminal case, the appellant-petitioner is also guilty
of concealment, as the criminal antecedents were not being
disclosed by the appellant-petitioner in his application from.
Respondents have further stated that the service under the
Police Department is service of discipline security force and thus,
the candidate having criminal antecedents and having concealed
the material information is not eligible / suitable for appointment
on the post of Constable.
4. The learned Single Judge decided the writ petition while
relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Love Kush Meena
reported in [(2021) 8 SCC 774] and Commissioner of Police
Vs. Raj Kumar reported in [(2021) 8 SCC 347]. The learned
Single Judge observed that although the appellant-petitioner was
acquitted by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 09.03.2010
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 10:10:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (4 of 16) [SAW-971/2022]
but the said acquittal was on the ground of compromise and
therefore, the same cannot be considered clean acquittal.
Learned Single Judge further observed that the matter
relates to appointment in discipline security force and therefore,
the prime recruitment is clean and honest character and thus, no
illegality was committed by the Selection Committee in rejecting
the candidature of appellant-petitioner. With the said observation,
the learned Single Judge vide order dated 22.04.2022 dismissed
the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner.
5. Rival Contentions:-
5.1 While assailing the validity of the judgment dated
22.04.2022, counsel for the appellant-petitioner argued that the
learned Single Judge has wrongly placed reliance upon the
judgment passed in case of Love Kush Meena (Supra) and Raj
Kumar (supra), because the facts of present case are not akin
to the facts of the said cases. Further, the guiding principles laid
down in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India: [(2016) 8
SCC 471] have not been considered in its true spirit by the
learned Single Judge.
5.2 Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner argued that the
Circular dated 28.03.2017 was also not considered by the learned
Single Judge in its true perspective. The learned counsel for the
appellant-petitioner also argued that registration of a criminal case
or even mere conviction is not a disqualification for appointment
under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for
brevity "Rules of 1989") and thus, rejection of appellant-
petitioner's candidature is in violation of the statutory provisions of
the Rules of 1989.
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 10:10:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (5 of 16) [SAW-971/2022]
It was further contended that the criminal case registered
against him was regarding offences of trivial nature and since the
appellant-petitioner has never been convicted, the same alone
cannot be justified ground for rejection of his candidature. It was
argued that the appellant-petitioner is meritorious candidate and
has secured higher merit position, therefore prayed that the order
impugned dated 22.04.2022 deserves to be quashed and the writ
petition be allowed in toto.
6. While supporting the judgement impugned dated
22.04.2022, counsel for the respondents argued that the learned
Single Judge has passed a perfectly valid and reasoned order while
taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the present
case and while rightly applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court.
Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that
as a matter of fact, two criminal cases have been registered
against the appellant-petitioner, however appellant-petitioner has
not disclosed his criminal antecedents in his application form.
Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the judgment of
Love Kush Meena (supra) was rightly relied upon by the Hon'ble
Single Judge and since the case of the appellant-petitioner does
not fall within the ambit of clean and honorable acquittal,
therefore, the judgment impugned is wholly justified. It was
contended that no interference is called for in the present appeal.
7. Relevant Provision and Precedents:-
7.1 The present case relates to appointment on the post of
Constable which is governed under the Rajasthan Police
Subordinate Service Rules, 1989. The Rule 13 of the Rules of 1989
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 10:10:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (6 of 16) [SAW-971/2022]
provides for "Character". For ready reference the said Rule 13 is
quoted hereunder:-
"13. Character.-(1) The Character of a candidate for direct recruitment
must be such as to qualify him for employment in the Service. He must
produce a certificate of good character from the Principal Academic
Officer of the University or College or School in which he was last
educated and two such certificates, written not more than six months prior
to the date of application, from two responsible persons not connected
with his School or College or University and not related to him.
(2) The Candidates with the following antecedents shall not be considered
for appointment:-
(a) Moral turpitude- It shall include a crime which pertains to
cheating, adulteration of food items, forgery, intoxication, rape,
outraging the modesty of a woman or any other kind of crime against
a woman, and willful suppression of information (particularly adverse
information) about the candidate e.g. suppression of information
about criminal case registered against a candidate or a case under
the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988 or if a candidate has ever
been debarred by any Board/Commission.
(b) Violence:- It shall include assault (section 324, 325, 326 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 etc.), rioting and involvement in crimes
disrupting communal harmony (section 146, 147, 148, 149, 153 and
offences under Chapter 15 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 etc.),
house trespass (section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) and
more serious offences like section 307, 308, 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 etc. It shall also include planned violence or any other
offence against the State as mentioned in Chapter VI of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and involvement in violent demonstrations and
destruction of public property under the Prevention of Damage to
Public Property Act, 1984.
(c) Illicit traficcing:- It shall include involvement in human trafficking
in any manner, trafficking of excisable articles or narcotic
substances. Illicit trafficking as defined in the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Central Act No. 61 of 1985) or
the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1988 (Central Act No. 46 of 1988), immoral
trafficking under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (Central
Act No. 104 of 1956) and excisable articles under the Rajasthan
Excise Act, 1950.
(d) Property ofencee:- It shall include property offences, except
those mentioned in Chapter 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.
(e) Caeee under inveetigation or trial- Candidate against whom any
criminal case is pending under investigation or trial, in respect of the
offences mentioned above, shall not be considered for appointment.
Note:
(i) If after the trial, the candidate is acquitted honourably then
the candidate may be considered for appointment by the Committee
constituted for the purpose at the level of the Department, if it is
produced within 3 years of the last date of application for
recruitment.
(ii) In case of acquittal, the department would be well within its
right to consider the antecedents and the suitability of the candidate,
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 10:10:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (7 of 16) [SAW-971/2022]
while so considering the severity of the charges levelled and
whether the acquittal in question was an honourable acquittal or
merely on grounds of benefit of doubt or compromise.
(iii) In case of closure of the case against the candidate after
investigation, candidature will be considered after the final report is
submitted to the court, provided the same is within one year of the
date of publication of final result and brought to the notice of the
department by the candidate.
(iv) Juvenile cases which involve one incident and if the candidate
was less than 16 years of age at the time of occurrence of crime,
shall be so considered, while a juvenile more than 16 years of age
shall be dealt with akin to an adult by the department if the offence
is not a petty offence as defined under various sections of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
7.2 In view of the clear and unambiguous language of Rule 13,
registration of criminal case or even conviction alone is not a
disqualification prescribed under the recruitment Rules. It is only if
the offences alleged are of the nature of moral turpitude, violence
(which shall not include the assault under Section 324, 325 and
326 IPC), illicit trafficking, property offences are considered as
disqualification for recruitment under the said Rules.
8.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its various authoritative
pronouncements have laid down the detailed guidelines for
consideration of the cases for recruitment where the candidate has
faced the criminal cases as well as where there had been
suppression of information by the candidate in the process of
recruitment.
8.2 The law on this issue is settled by three-Judge Bench of Hon'ble
Apex Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India: [(2016) 8 SCC 471],
laying down the guidelines for consideration of such cases of conviction
or concealment by a candidate in the recruitment process. The relevant
paras of the judgement are extracted hereinbelow:-
"34. No doubt about it that verification of character and
antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess
suitability and it is open to employer to adjudge
antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action should be
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 10:10:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (8 of 16) [SAW-971/2022]
based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all
relevant aspects.
35. Suppression of "material" information
presupposes that what is suppressed that "matters"
not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has
to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if
any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel
candidature or for terminating the services of
employee. Though a person who has suppressed the
material information cannot claim unfettered right for
appointment or continuity in service but he has a right
not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power
has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity
having due regard to facts of cases.
36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the
nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous
criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For
lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact
of suppression on suitability has to be considered by
authorities concerned considering post/nature of
duties/services and power has to be exercised on due
consideration of various aspects.
***
38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain
and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the
aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:
38.1. 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.
38.2. 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.
38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the
Government Orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the
employee, at the time of taking the decision.
38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of
involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal
had already been recorded before filling of the
application/verification form and such fact later comes to
knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses
appropriate to the case may be adopted:
38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction
had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young
age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not
have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in
question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore
such suppression of fact or false information by
condoning the lapse.
38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which
is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or
terminate services of the employee.
38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a
case involving moral turpitude or offence of(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 10:10:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (9 of 16) [SAW-971/2022]heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is
not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable
doubt has been given, the employer may consider all
relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may
take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the
employee.
38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration
truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still
has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be
compelled to appoint the candidate.
38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in
character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal
case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances
of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate
subject to decision of such case.
38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with
respect to multiple pending cases such false information by
itself will assume significance and an employer may pass
appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating
services as appointment of a person against whom multiple
criminal cases were pending may not be proper.
38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the
candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have
adverse impact and the appointing authority would take
decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, [Ed. :
The matter between two asterisks has been emphasised in
original.] holding [Ed. : The matter between two asterisks
has been emphasised in original.] departmental enquiry
would be necessary before passing order of
termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of
suppression or submitting false information in verification
form.
38.10. For determining suppression or false information
attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague.
Only such information which was required to be specifically
mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for
but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the
same can be considered in an objective manner while
addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases
action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting
false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.
38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or
suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable
to him.”
(emphasis supplied)
8.3 In case of Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India: [(2023) 12
SCC 317], involving appointment to the post of Constable in
Railway Protection Force and setting aside the order of discharge
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 10:10:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (10 of 16) [SAW-971/2022]
due to alleged suppression in the verification form, the Hon’ble
Apex Court has held as under :-
“11. This cannot be disputed that the candidate who intends
to participate in the selection process is always required to
furnish correct information relating to his character and
antecedents in the verification/attestation form before and
after induction into service. It is also equally true that the
person who has suppressed the material information or has
made false declaration indeed has no unfettered right of
seeking appointment or continuity in service, but at least
has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to
be judiciously exercised by the competent authority in a
reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to
the facts of the case on hand. It goes without saying that
the yardstick/standard which has to be applied with regard
to adjudging suitability of the incumbent always depends
upon the nature of post, nature of duties, effect of
suppression over suitability to be considered by the
authority on due diligence of various aspects but no hard
and fast rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard.
***
13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this
Court is that by mere suppression of material/false
information regardless of the fact whether there is a
conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the
employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated
axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the
same time, the effect of suppression of material/false
information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the
employer to consider all the relevant facts and
circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in
view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules
into consideration, while taking appropriate decision
regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into
service. What has been noticed by this Court is that mere
suppression of material/false information in a given case
does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily
discharge/terminate the employee from service.
8.4 Reiterating the principles laid down in Avtar Singh (Supra),
recently the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar
Vs. State of U.P.: [(2024) 5 SCC 264], has held :-
32. The nature of the office, the timing and nature of
the criminal case; the overall consideration of the
judgment of acquittal; the nature of the query in the
application/verification form; the contents of the
character verification reports; the socio-economic
strata of the individual applying; the other
antecedents of the candidate; the nature of
consideration and the contents of the
cancellation/termination order are some of the
crucial aspects which should enter the judicial verdict(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 10:10:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (11 of 16) [SAW-971/2022]in adjudging suitability and in determining the nature
of relief to be ordered.”
34. On the facts of the case and in the backdrop of the
special circumstances set out hereinabove, where does the
non-disclosure of the unfortunate criminal case, (which too
ended in acquittal), stand in the scheme of things? In our
opinion on the peculiar facts of the case, we do not think it
can be deemed fatal for the appellant. Broad-brushing every
non-disclosure as a disqualification, will be unjust and the
same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the
ground realities obtaining in this great, vast and diverse
country. Each case will depend on the facts and
circumstances that prevail thereon, and the court will
have to take a holistic view, based on objective
criteria, with the available precedents serving as a
guide. It can never be a one size fits all scenario.
9. Reasonings and Analysis :-
9.1 We have heard learned counsel for parties and scrutinized
the material available on record. The learned Single Judge has
dismissed the writ petition while observing that acquittal on the
basis of compromise cannot be considered as clean acquittal and
in the case of appointment in discipline security forces, the
character of candidate assumes significance. The learned Single
Judge has further relied upon the judgments passed in the case of
Raj Kumar (supra) and Love Kush Meena (supra).
9.2 A bare perusal of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1989, makes it clear
that the said provision does not prescribe the disqualification mere
on the factum of conviction but the same is based upon nature of
offences involved in the criminal case. Mere conviction alone is not
a disqualification for appointment under the Rules of 1989. The
object of the said provision is to debar the candidate only if his
conviction is based upon the offences involving moral turpitude or
association with crimes of violence etc.
9.3 Even the Circular dated 28.03.2017 (Ann.R/6) issued by the
respondent – Police Department itself reveals that the guidelines
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 10:10:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (12 of 16) [SAW-971/2022]have been issued for consideration of the candidature for
recruitment under the Rules of 1989 and the same provides that
the candidates will be considered for appointment who have
disclosed the criminal antecedents where; (i) after investigation,
the candidate is not found accused, final report is accepted (ii)
where the candidate has been acquitted by the Court “on the basis
of benefit of doubt or lack of evidence” (iii) where the candidate
has been acquitted on the basis of compromise (iv) where the
benefit of probation has been granted (v) where the benefit of
Section 15 (ii) (a) under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act was granted.
9.4 On conjoint reading of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1989 as well as
the Circular dated 28.03.2017, it is clear that the acquittal on the
basis of compromise as well as criminal case wherein FR has been
given by the Investigation Agency are not considered as ground to
deny the appointment under the Rules of 1989. So far as gravity
of offence involved in case of the appellant-petitioner is concerned,
it is clear that the same was not of heinous nature rather falls
within the exception clearly carved out under Rule 13 (2) (b) of
the Rules of 1989. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Ravindra Kumar (supra) has clearly held that each case will
depend upon of its facts and circumstances which has to be
considered on various relevant factors. In our opinion, when even
a conviction for an offence not involving moral turpitude or crimes
of violence is not considered as disqualification, the acquittal on
the basis of compromise can in no case is considered as justified
ground to deny appointment to a meritorious candidate.
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 10:10:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (13 of 16) [SAW-971/2022]
In view of the facts of the present case, it is clear that the
FIR against the appellant-petitioner was registered in the year
2007 and the criminal case came to be decided in the year 2010
by way of compromise. Whereas the recruitment advertisement in
the present case was issued in the year 2012 i.e. 2 years after
acquittal of the appellant-petitioner. This clearly shows that the
said compromise was arrived between the parties with the spirit of
brotherhood and for maintaining future peaceful relations and the
same was not arrived only for the purpose of securing
employment. In view of the facts of the present case, the
rejection of the appellant- petitioner’s candidature while holding
that the acquittal on the basis of compromise cannot be
considered as clean acquittal cannot be sustained.
10.1 So far as the issue of concealment of criminal antecedents on
the part of appellant-petitioner is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Avtar Singh (supra) and Ravindra Kumar
(supra), has held that even the cases of non-disclosure have to
be considered in an objective manner and mere suppression of
criminal antecedents itself alone cannot be a justified ground for
rejection of candidature.
10.2 Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has drawn our
attention to the police verification form (Ann.R/2) and a perusal of
the same shows that the information sought in the said from was
with regard to “any conviction or jail period, which a candidate
might have faced”. To the said query, the appellant-petitioner has
not furnished any details as he was never been convicted. In this
view of matter, it is clear that there had been no intention of
appellant-petitioner to suppress or conceal any material
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 10:10:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (14 of 16) [SAW-971/2022]
information as the details filled by the appellant-petitioner in the
verification form was in consonance with the information sought in
the said form. While applying the criteria for consideration of
suppressed information, in the light of Ravindra Kumar (supra),
we find that there was no willful concealment as such on the pat of
appellant – petitioner. Even otherwise, the appellant-petitioner has
already been acquitted in a criminal case on the basis of
compromise and since the same itself is not a ground of
disqualification, therefore, the non-disclosure of the same alone
cannot be a ground for denying the appointment to the appellant-
petitioner.
11.1 Learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon the judgment
passed in the case of Love Kush Meena (supra) and Raj Kumar
(supra). It is a settled position of law of precedents that the
judgments are to be made applicable only upon the similar facts
and circumstances. A bare perusal of the judgment passed in case
of Love Kush Meena (supra) shows that one of the case
registered against the petitioner therein was for the offence
punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and the facts
also referred to planed action / intention to commit the crime. In
the said background where the alleged crime against the petitioner
therein was of heinous nature, the Hon’ble Court has passed the
said judgment.
However, in the presence case, the offences alleged against
the appellant-petitioner were for offences under Section 323, 451,
325/34 IPC which are not of grave nature and even the Rule 13
(2) (b) clearly provides that the violence shall not include the
assault under Sections 324, 325 and 326 IPC.
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 10:10:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (15 of 16) [SAW-971/2022]
Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the
judgment passed in case of Love Kush Meena (supra) is not
applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
11.2 The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Raj Kumar (supra) is also not applicable in the present
case as in the said case the offence has been committed in
planned manner where the accused persons armed with ‘lathis’
committed offence of trespass into house of complainant and
snatched the jewellery of complainant’s daughter-in-law by
causing injuries.
12. The appellant-petitioner has also placed reliance upon the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP
No.10830/2020: State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajesh Kumar
Meena wherein the SLP has been dismissed in the case where the
acquittal was based upon compromise between the parties. After
the said decision, the appointment has been granted to the said
candidate.
13. On the facts of present case and in the backdrop of peculiar
facts and circumstances set out hereinabove, we do not think that
the acquittal on compromise as well as non-disclosure of offence of
trivial nature can be deemed to be fatal for the appellant.
14. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal succeeds
and the same is allowed. The judgment impugned dated
22.04.2022 is quashed and set aside. The writ petition filed by the
appellant-petitioner is allowed, while directing the respondent-
department to grant appointment to the appellant-petitioner on
the post of Constable (General) for which he was selected
pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 28.09.2012. We
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 10:10:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (16 of 16) [SAW-971/2022]
make it clear that the appellant-petitioner will not be entitled for
arrears of salary for the period during which he has not served in
the force. However, we direct that the appellant-petitioner will be
entitled for all notional benefits including pay-scale, seniority and
other consequential benefits. The respondents are directed to pass
necessary orders within a period of four weeks from today. There
shall be no order as to costs.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
TN
(Downloaded on 14/08/2025 at 10:10:29 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link