Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who is serving as a Constable with the 2nd I.R.B., Haryana Police has filed the instant petition assailing the order dated 11.12.2013 (Annexure P-9), passed by the D.G.P., Haryana, respondent no.2 in terms of which his claim seeking deemed date of appointment w.e.f. 27.10.2004 i.e. the date a person junior to the petitioner had been appointed, has been rejected.
(2.) Brief facts and on which there is no dispute would require notice. Petitioner applied for the post of Constable in Haryana Police for Indian Reserved Battalion in pursuance to an advertisement issued in December, 2003. Having been duly selected in a process of selection petitioner was deputed for training on 29.l0.2004. His candidature, however, was cancelled vide order dated 6.12.2004 ostensibly on the ground that he had concealed the factum of having been involved in an F.I.R at the stage of submission of his application form. At that stage petitioner preferred CWP No.897 of 2006 before this Court impugning the order dated 6.12.2004 canceling his candidature. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the petition in the light of order dated 4.5.2009 directing the respondent authorities to re-examine the matter and to pass appropriate orders after grant of an opportunity of personal hearing.
(3.) Suffice it to observe that the Division Bench while issuing directions on 4.5.2009 had taken notice of the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner that F.I.R dated 16.9.1999 had been registered but since the witnesses did not support the prosecution version petitioner was acquitted vide order dated 25.10.2004, passed by the Trial Court. This was prior to the date of passing of the order of cancellation of candidature of the petitioner i.e. 6.12.2004. It was further taken notice that the matter had been compromised between the complainant and the accused party on 21.9.1999 itself and which fact was recognized by the Trial Court in the order of acquittal passed subsequently. In other words, the compromise had been effected even prior to filling up of the form by the petitioner seeking appointment to the post of Constable. Yet another fact that had weighed with the Division Bench was that a State Policy had been formulated containing a list of offences constituting moral turpitude and debarring the candidates from employment and the case/offence of the petitioner was not covered under such list.;