Yog Raj vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 31 July, 2025

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Yog Raj vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 31 July, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.6233 of 2022
Date of Decision: 31.07.2025

.

_______________________________________________________

Yog Raj …….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes.

For the Petitioner: Mr. Angrez Kapoor, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr.
Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C.
Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with
Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate

General, for the respondent-State.

____________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

Precisely, the question, which needs to be determined in

the case at hand is that “whether compassionate appointment, duly

approved by the competent authority, could have been denied to the

petitioner on the ground of pendency of FIR against him or not?”.

2. The facts, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on

record and relevant for the proper adjudication of the case at hand

are that father of the petitioner, who was working in the Department of

Elementary Education w.e.f 01.08.1998 to 21.10.2009 as JBT, died in

harness on 21.10.2009 leaving behind eight members of his family. In

the year 2010, petitioner submitted an application for compassionate

1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS
2

appointment in the office of Block Elementary Education Officer,

Salooni, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, who, vide order dated

.

04.06.2011, returned the case of the petitioner with the observation

that the claim of the petitioner did not fall within the ambit of

Government Policy. After receipt of aforesaid communication,

petitioner, through his counsel, served a legal notice upon the

respondents, who, vide order dated 26.09.2014, reviewed the case of

the petitioner.

3. Vide communication dated 18.12.2019 (Annexure P-5),

Deputy Director Elementary, Education, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh,

sent the case of the petitioner to respondent No. 2 for further action.

Though on 26.02.2021, Government approved the name of the

petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground for the post of

Class-III (JOA IT) and last date to submit fresh/latest documents was

specified in communication dated 16.03.2021, but fact remains that till

date no appointment letter has been issued. Though on 13.04.2021,

petitioner submitted the requite documents, in terms of Annexure P-7,

to the office of Block Elementary Education Officer, Salooni, District

Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, and thereafter, more than four years

have passed but no appointment letter has been issued, as such,

petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings,

praying therein for the reliefs reproduced hereinbelow:-

::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS
3

“(i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be
issued to the respondents, that to offer the appointment to the
petitioner on compassionate ground to the post of Classs-III (JOA
IT) in term of Annexure P-7, dated 16.03.2021, because as per

.

Annexure P-7, Government has already been approved the name of
petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground to the post of
Class-III (JOA IT), on 26.02.2021, and name of the petitioner is

figured at sr. No. 13 of the Annexure-A of the approval list of
Annexure P-7.

(ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to

respondents that petitioner shall be deemed to be in service in the
above mentioned post since April 2021, with all consequential
benefits, because since, March, 2021, to till today more than on
eyear has been elapsed, despite the fact that petitioner has been

submitted all the latest documents in the month of April 2021, as

required in term of Annexure P-7.”

4. On inquiry, it transpired to the petitioner that his

appointment letter is not being issued on the ground of pendency of

FIR. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings,

respondents No. 1 & 3 have filed short reply, perusal whereof reveals

that though name of the petitioner stands approved by the competent

authority for appointment on compassionate ground for the post of

JOA (IT), but appointment letter could not be issued on the ground of

pendency of FIR No. 5 of 2019, registered at PS Kihar under Sections

323 and 325 of Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC“).

5. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been

highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Angrez

::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS
4

Kapoor, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that mere

pendency of FIR, that too under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC, cannot

.

be a ground to delay the appointment of the petitioner on

compassionate ground. Mr. Kapoor, further submitted that since there

was no misrepresentation, if any, on the part of the petitioner, there

was no occasion, if any, for the respondents to delay issuance of

appointment letter to the petitioner. He further submitted that guilt, if

any, of the petitioner in aforesaid FIR is yet to be established on

record by leading cogent and convincing evidence and as such,

petitioner deserves to be offered appointment letter at the earliest. In

support of his aforesaid submissions, he placed reliance upon the

judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 9026 of

2022, titled as Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and

others, which came to be decided on 10.01.2023. In afore case,

petitioner therein though was selected for the post of General Duty

Constable (Male), but was not issued appointment letter on the

ground of his being involved in a criminal case, by placing reliance

upon Clause-19 of H.P. Government Notification dated 05.08.2021

(Recruitment Rules) and Stage-08 of Recruitment Notice dated

10.09.2021.

6. Division Bench of this Court, having taken note of gravity

of crime, coupled with the fact that guilt, if any, of the petitioner in that

::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS
5

case was to be established on record, deprecated the action of the

respondents in not issuing appointment letter to the petitioner, despite

.

his being selected. Relevant paras of the afore judgment are

reproduced hereinbelow:-

“8. As regards the first ground, it has been stated that the case

against the petitioner is pending and he may be acquitted or
convicted by the Ld. Trial Court. But the moot question is whether,
in such circumstances, the offence can be said to be of such a

serious nature as may amount to moral turpitude and is by itself
sufficient to deprive the petitioner of his appointment when
admittedly the petitioner alone has not been arraigned as an
accused in the FIR that has been lodged where a number of

persons have been arraigned. The dispute therein is amongst two

groups of villagers. Earlier some beatings had been given to the
uncle of the petitioner which led to the registration of the FIR
No.110/2019 at Police Station, Nahan, on 14.11.2019 and as many

as 9 persons were named in that FIR. However, as a counterblast,
the opposite party thereafter lodged an FIR No.113/2019 on
20.11.2019 i.e. after six days of lodging of the FIR by the petitioner’s

uncle. This fact has been duly noticed by the Court while passing
the judgment in CWP No.6851 of 2022 as is evident from

paragraphs 19 to 21 (supra).

9. Given the factual background, even reason No.2 in itself cannot

be a sufficient ground to withhold the appointment of the petitioner,
especially, when the uncle of the petitioner was the first to lodge the
FIR, whereas, the FIR of the opposite party came to be registered
much later i.e. after six days.

10. Likewise, even third reason by construing the word “may” as
“shall” and thereby depriving the petitioner of his appointment is
again contrary to the letter and spirit of the order passed by this
Court in CWP No. 6851 of 2022 (supra).

::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS
6

11. The 3rd respondent was duty bound to have reached at a
decision by taking into account the relevant considerations and
should not have taken into account the wholly irrelevant and
extraneous considerations. It is not the answer that 3rd respondent

.

acted bonafide or that he bestowed painstaking consideration. The
reasons as given by 3rd respondent are not good reasons as the
relevant factors have been kept out of consideration and irrelevant

considerations were made the basis of the consideration order.

12. In such circumstances, the instant writ petition is allowed and
the impugned orders dated 09.09.2022 (Annexure P-1) and

26.12.2022 (Annexure P-5) are quashed and set aside. The official-
respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of
General Duty Constable (Male) forthwith with consequential benefits
of seniority, the same shall, however, be subject to the outcome of

the criminal case. However, since the petitioner has not worked on

the post, the actual monetary benefits shall be payable to him only
from the date of this judgment.”

7. Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General,

while justifying the impugned action of the respondents in not offering

appointment to the petitioner, vehemently argued that factum with

regard to lodging of FIR was concealed by the petitioner at the time of

his making application for the post in question and as such, no

illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents,

while denying him appointment on compassionate ground. Mr.

Verma, further submitted that petitioner is accused of offences

punishable under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC and has been rightly

denied appointment, despite there being recommendation made by

::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS
7

the competent authority for his appointment, in terms of Clause-19 of

H.P. Government Notification dated 05.08.2021 (Recruitment Rules)

.

and Stage-08 of Recruitment Notice dated 10.09.2021.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused material available on record, this Court finds that there is no

dispute that father of the petitioner was working with the Department

of Elementary Education w.e.f 01.08.1998 till 21.10.2009 as JBT and

died in harness leaving behind eight members of his family including

petitioner. Since petitioner was not major at the time of death of his

father, he, after having attained majority, applied for compassionate

appointment in the year 2010 to the office of Block Elementary

Education Officer Salooni, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, who,

vide order dated 04.06.2011, rejected the claim of the petitioner on

the ground that he does not fall within the ambit of Government

Policy. Subsequently, case of the petitioner was reconsidered and

vide communications dated 24.09.2016 and 18.12.2019, Deputy

Director, Elementary Education, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, sent the

case of the petitioner to respondent No. 2 for further action. Vide

order dated 16.03.2021, Government approved the name of the

petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on the post of

JOA (IT) and asked him to submit fresh/latest documents. Though

::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS
8

petitioner submitted all requisite documents as were called for, but he

was denied appointment for unknown reasons.

.

9. For the first time, respondents, by way of filing reply to

the petition, have put-forth their defence that since FIR bearing No. 5

of 2019 stands registered against the petitioner under Sections 323

and 325 IPC, he could not be issued appointment letter, but such plea

taken at the behest of the respondent/State is not sustainable for the

reason that guilt, if any, of the petitioner in afore case is yet to be

established by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing

evidence. Neither there is anything on record to suggest that

petitioner ever concealed factum with regard to lodging of FIR against

him nor there is any document, if any with the respondents,

suggestive of the fact that petitioner was to send information with

regard to pendency of criminal case, if any, against him to the

respondents. It is merely on the basis of application filed by the

petitioner that his case came to be forwarded to respondent No. 2 by

respondent No. 3, respondent No. 2 further submitted the case to the

Government, which ultimately came to be approved, vide

communication dated 16.03.2021. At no point of time, petitioner was

asked by the respondents with regard to pendency of FIR, if any,

against him and as such, there was no occasion for him to disclose

such fact, which otherwise could not have any bearing in the case at

::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS
9

hand for the reason that guilt, if any, of the petitioner in afore case is

yet to be established on record by the prosecution by leading cogent

.

and convincing evidence. Moreover, allegations/charges, if any, in the

FIR are not so serious, where petitioner can be denied appointment,

rather same appears to be on the ground of some altercation or

scuffle that took place inter se petitioner and complainant in the FIR.

10. Division Bench of this Court, in similar facts and

circumstances, in Sanjay Kumar (supra), relevant paras whereof

have been reproduced hereinabove, deprecated the action of the

respondents in not issuing the appointment letter to the petitioner in

that case, who was selected for the post of Constable General Duty,

on ground of pendency of criminal case. No doubt, pendency of

criminal case and registration of FIR is to be taken into account, while

considering a candidate for appointment and even at the time of

training, as per the Rules, but then the gravity and nature of the

offence has also to be considered and, therefore, mere registration of

criminal case by itself cannot be a ground for the appointing authority

to deny appointment or for that matter withhold regularization. In

judgment dated 22.10.2019 passed in CWP No.2110 of 2019, titled,

Rajinder Kumar vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation &

another, Principal Division Bench of this Court has held that mere

pendency of criminal case cannot be a reason to deny the

::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS
10

regularization to an employee. Relevant paras of the afore judgment

read as under:-

.

“5. Pre-condition for regularization, as per the Government

instructions is that an employee, who completes three years of
continuous service on contract basis, is entitled for regularization.
For the purpose of regularization what has to be looked into is;

firstly whether he is a fit person for regularization; secondly,
whether he has completed three years of continuous service which
is mandatory for regularization; and thirdly, whether his character
and conduct is good in order to hold the post in

Government/Corporation. When these are the facts and
requirement for the purpose of regularization then merely on the
ground of registration of a criminal case, a person cannot be

deprived of his right of regularization. Since there are many

offences which are stated in the IPC but, the Head of Office or the
Appointing Authority has to look into the nature of criminal case
involved. From the FIR produced, the offences against the

petitioner are under Sections 341, 323 and 34 IPC. These offences
are common and trivial in nature in respect of a driver, who has to
negotiate his vehicle on public road and it is normal that whenever

a person who has to negotiate a vehicle on a public road, touches
the Government vehicle. This itself may not be sufficient to register

a criminal case. Merely registration of a case itself should not be a
ground to deprive the petitioner for regularization. The Head of

Office is always presumed that he should protect his employees
where cases are filed against its employees. The pendency of a
criminal case and registration of FIR is to be taken into account but
it depends upon the gravity and nature of the offence. Merely
registration of a criminal case itself is not a ground and it shows
that the Appointing Authority or the Head of Office has not applied
its mind in the present case. Getting an employment/regularization
though is not a fundamental right but consideration for
regularization is a fundamental right for the purpose of Article 16 of

::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS
11

the Constitution of India. When such is a fundamental right for
consideration then while dealing with such rights, the respondents
should take all care and caution. The respondents in the present
case are dealing with the right to life of an employee which

.

ultimately affects his dependents as well. When such interest is
involved, which includes the employee as well as his family
members, dealing always should be with more care and caution

and not in a mechanical and negligent manner.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India vs P.
Soupramaniane, referred supra in para-7 held as to what is the

meaning of moral turpitude. It is important and beneficial for Head
of the Department to take note of the observations made by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-7, which reads as under:

“7. Moral Turpitude’ as defined in the Black’s Law Dictionary

(6th ed.) is as follows:

“The Act of baseness, vileness, or the depravity in
the private and social duties which man owes to his
follow man, or to society in general, contrary to

accepted and customary rule of right and duty
between man and man.”

“implies something immoral in itself regardless of it

being punishable by law”; “restricted to the gravest

offences, consisting of felonies, infamous crimes, and
those that are malum in se and disclose a depraved
mind.”

According to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, ‘Moral
Turpitude’ is :

“An act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the
private and social duties which a man owes to his
fellow men or to society in general, contrary to the
accepted and customary rule of right and duty
between man and man.” Burton Legal Thesaurus
defines ‘Moral Turpitude’ as :

::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS
12

“Bad faith, bad repute, corruption, defilement,
delinquency, discredit, dishonor, shame, guilt,
knavery, misdoing, perversion, shame, ice, wrong.”

.

7. In State of Haryana vs. Ved Kaur, referred sura the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has also observed in para-8, which reads as under:

“8. The instructions dated 26.03.1975 which were relied

upon in the present case, had been considered by this Court
in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana and another and
paragraph 12 of the decision is relevant for present
purposes. The said paragraph was as under:

“12. Moral turpitude” is an expression which is
used in legal as also societal parlance to describe conduct
which is inherently base, vile, depraved or having any

connection showing depravity. The Government of Haryana

while considering the question of rehabilitation of ex-convicts
took a policy decision on 2-2-1973 (Annexure E in the
Paper-book), accepting the recommendations of the
Government of India, that ex-convicts who were convicted

for offences involving moral turpitude should not however be
taken in government service. A list of offences which were

considered involving moral turpitude was prepared for
information and guidance in that connection. Significantly

Section 294 IPC is not found enlisted in the list of offences
constituting moral turpitude. Later, on further consideration,
the Government of High Court of H.P. 6 Haryana on 17/26-

3-1975 explained the policy decision of 2-2-1973 and
decided to modify the earlier decision by streamlining
determination of moral turpitude as follows:

“… The following terms should ordinarily be applied in
judging whether a certain offence involves moral turpitude or
not; (1) whether the act leading to a conviction was such as

could shock the moral conscience of society in general.
(2) whether the motive which led to the act was a base one.

::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS
13

(3) whether on account of the act having been committed the
perpetrator could be considered to be of a depraved
character or a person who was to be looked down upon by

.

the society. Decision in each case will, however, depend on

the circumstances of the case and the competent authority
has to exercise its discretion while taking a decision in

accordance with the abovementioned principles. A list of
offences which involve moral turpitude is enclosed for your
information and guidance. This list, however, cannot be said
to be exhaustive and there might be offences which are not

included in it but which in certain situations and
circumstances may involve moral turpitude.” Section 294
IPC still remains out of the list. Thus the conviction of the
appellant under Section 294 IPC on its own would not

involve moral turpitude depriving him of the opportunity to

serve the State unless the facts and circumstances, which
led to the conviction, met the requirements of the policy
decision above-quoted.”

8. In the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and the material placed before us, we are of the opinion that a
criminal cases when comes in the way of regularization in respect of

an employee, it has to be carefully scrutinized by the Head of Office
or Appointing Authority, unless it is to be held it is a case of serious

nature and colourable exercise of powers.”

11. Three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Apex court, while dealing

with the suppression of material facts for submitting false information

in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others (2019) 8 SCC 71, held

that, in case of trivial nature, in which conviction and acquittal has

been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty

offence, which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent

::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS
14

unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore

such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.

.

In the case at hand, respondents have not been able to demonstrate

that petitioner concealed factum with regard to pendency of FIR

against him and guilt, if any, of the petitioner is yet to be established

on record by the prosecution. Relevant paras of the afore judgment

read as under:-

“18. Similar issue regarding the appointment of Constable came up
before the learned Single Judge of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana
High Court, in CWP No.26398 of 2016 (O&M), titled Amarjeet

Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, decided on 13.02.2020,

wherein it is held that the appointment of the petitioner cannot be
denied only on account of the registration of FIR in spite of being a
selected candidate for the post in question. The learned Single
Judge while allowing the petition observed, as under:

“The uncontroverted factual premise is that on the date of
advertisement and submission of application form there was

no FIR against the petitioner. Name of the petitioner figures
in FIR No.22 dated 11.07.2016 at Police Station Women Cell

Firozepur under Sections 406/498-A IPC at the instance of
his sister-in-law. Challan was presented in the Court after

completion of investigation on 22.12.2017 and name of the
petitioner had been placed in column No.2. Petitioner is not
facing trial inasmuch as no charges have been framed
against him. Even an application moved by the complainant
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the petitioner herein
to face trial as an additional accused stands dismissed by
the Trial Court vide order dated 04.06.2019 at Annexure
P-12.

::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS
15

This Court is of the considered view that mere registration of
an FIR cannot be made the basis and equated with a finding
of guilt recorded by a competent Court. In other words
registration of a case cannot lend the colour of conviction.

.

The action of the respondent department in not 3 of 6
issuing an appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of
Constable inspite of his selection and merit position would

amount to holding the petitioner guilty of the offence. Such a
course of action would be totally unwarranted. In taking such
view this Court would draw support from the observations
made by the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High

Court in Harsh Gupta Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board
1995, (1) SCT 485 and which are as under:-

“On the merits of the case, I would like, once again, to make

it clear that at the time of selection, the petitioner had no

blemish whatsoever against him. The only material which
came into existence after his selection is in the form of
registration of first information report against almost all the

members of the family of the petitioner roping them in an
offence under Section 498A IPC. The question is, whether
mere registration of a case by the police can be made the

basis for holding that the petitioner’s character is doubtful or
unsatisfactory. The answer of this question will depend on

as to whether registration of a case by the police can be
equated with a finding of guilt recorded by a competent

Court or Tribunal. Registration of a case simpliciter does not
automatically result in conviction of a person. It does not per
se cause a stigma on character of a person. Therefore, the
information which the police had forwarded to the
authorities of the Board regarding the character of the
petitioner was misleading. Apparently, the authorities of the
Board have, without applying their mind, mechanically acted
on the report sent by the police authority at Ajmer.
Authorities of the Board never bothered to find out as to

::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS
16

what is the nature of the allegation levelled against the
petitioner; what is the stage of the case and as to whether
the petitioner has been found guilty of an offence. I am of
the considered opinion that action which the respondent-

.

Board has taken is not in terms of para 6 of the order of
appointment dated 4 of 6 23.11.1991. This view of mine is
fully supported by D.B. Judgment of this Court in Gopi Lal v.

State of Rajasthan and another, [1989 (2) RLR 748]. The
Division Bench has observed as under:

We may, therefore, sum up that the service of a Government

servant cannot be terminated or the Government servant
cannot be discharged from service only on account of the
pendency of a criminal case against him. The reason is
obvious. Unless the guilt is proved, one is presumed to be

innocent. Moreover, criminal case may be launched out of

enmity etc. It is, therefore, the conviction and not the
pendency of a criminal case which should be taken into
account for disciplinary action.”

The judgement in Delhi Administration’s case (supra) would
have no applicability to the facts of the present case as in
that case there was a concealment of being involved in

Criminal proceedings whereas in the present case there is
no concealment whatsoever as on the date of submission of

application for the post by the petitioner, the FIR had not
even been registered.

Rule 12.14 (1) of the Punjab Police Rules 1934 reads as
under:-

12.14. Recruits – Status of.– (1) Recruits shall be of good
character and great care shall be taken in selecting men of a
type suitable for police service from candidates presenting
themselves for enrolment.” As per mandate of the afore-
reproduced rule the recruits are to be of good character and
great care has to be taken while selecting recruits. There is

::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS
17

no material whatsoever with the respondent authorities to
conclude that the petitioner herein is not of good character.
Mere registration of an FIR cannot be made the basis of
invoking the Rule 12.14 (1) and particularly in a situation

.

where pursuant to investigation having 5 of 6 been carried
out, the petitioner has not even been challaned and no
charges have been framed against him. Denial of

appointment letter inspite of being a selected candidate on
the strength of Rule 12.14 (1) of the Punjab Police Rules
cannot sustain.

19. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it would be noticed that
it was not only the petitioner alone, as an accused in the FIR, but a
number of persons have been arrayed as an accused. According to
the petitioner, there was a dispute with respect to the cremation

place between two groups of villagers. Earlier some beatings had

been given to the uncle of the petitioner, which led to registration of
an FIR No.110/2019, at Police Station, Nahan, on 14.11.2019 and
there were as many as nine persons named in the instant FIR. As a

counter blast, the opposite party lodged and FIR on 20.11.2019,
being FIR No.113/2019, that too after six days, which has been
lodged solely for roping the uncle of the petitioner.

20. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the

considered view that the respondents could not have straightway
kept in abeyance the appointment of the petitioner without
considering the relevant factors like the nature and gravity of the

accusation because, in case, these allegations are subsequently
found to be false or not proved in the trial, resulting in acquittal, the
same would cause undue hardship to the petitioner, as the
petitioner would then be appointed only after getting clearance
during investigation and trial and would be offered appointment
subsequently occurring vacancies for no fault on his part, which may
take several years if not decades.

::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS
18

21. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it
appropriate to allow the instant petition by directing the third
respondent to consider the gravity and nature of offence alongwith
all accumulative facts and circumstances including the FIR

.

registered against the petitioner and may thereafter take a decision
with regard to the offering appointment to the petitioner or keeping
the same in abeyance until the petitioner gets clearance during

investigation or trial. We further clarify that while considering the
matter, the respondents shall not be influenced by what has been
observed above, as the observations are only prima facie and
tentative and shall not otherwise be treated as binding on the

respondents. Meaning thereby, that the respondents shall take an
independent decision in the matter.”

12. Otherwise also, by now it is well settled that till the time

charge is not framed against the accused and he is not convicted by

competent Court of law, he is deemed to be innocent. If it is so, denial

of appointment on the ground of mere pendency of FIR, that too for

the petty offences, may not be sustainable, rather at this stage,

respondents can offer appointment to the petitioner, but certainly

petitioner’s continuance in service would ultimately depend upon

outcome of the criminal trial, if any, initiated, pursuant to FIR lodged

against him.

13. In view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present

petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. Respondents are

directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner on

compassionate ground on the basis of approval given by the

::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS
19

competent authority, expeditiously, preferably within four weeks as

per seniority. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

.

                                                           (Sandeep Sharma),
                                                                Judge
    July 31, 2025





       (Sunil)




                        r           to









                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS