SHARMA, J. - (1.) SINCE identical questions of fact and law are involved in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by a common order.
(2.) IN all these writ petitions, the grievance expressed by the petitioners is that the respondents have not properly appreciated Rr. 13 & 15 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (in short `the Rules, 1989' ). Before dealing with the facts of each case, I deem it necessary to consider the relevant statutory provisions. Rule 13 of Rules 1989 provides "13. Character.-The Character of a candidate for direct recruitment must be such as to qualify him for employment in 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 nor 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. Notes.- (1) A conviction by a Court of Law need not of itself involve the refusal of a certificate of good character. The circumstances of the conviction should be taken into account and if they involve no moral turpitude or association with crimes of violence or with a movement, which has its object to overthrow by violent means a Government as established by law, the mere conviction need not be regarded as a disqualification. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 4 Rule 15 of Rules 1989 provides thus:- " 15. Employment of Irregular or Improper Means.-A candidate who is or has been declared by the Recruitment Board/commission or the Appointing Authority guilty of impersonation or of submitting fabricated documents, which have been tampered with or suppressing material information or of using or attempting to use unfair means in the examination or interview or otherwise resorting to any other irregular or improper means for obtaining admission to the examination or interview may, in addition to rendering himself liable to criminal prosecution be debarred either permanently, or for a specified period:- (a) by the Recruitment Board/commissions or the Appointing Authority for admission to any examination or appearance at any interview to be held under the provisions of these Rules, and (b) by Government from employment under the Government. " 5 With a view to recruit persons with upright and sterling character in the Police Service, the Director General of Police issued a memorandum on 29. 4. 1995 explaining R. 13 of Rules, 1989 which provides thus:- " 3. In the application form for the recruitment of Constables and other ranks in the Police hence information is sought specifically whether the applicant had been involved in any criminal act, or had been ever arrested/ released on bail, or had been convicted by any Court. It has been found that often candidates suppress such information by not filling these columns, or give vague or wrong answers. " If a candidate/applicant is guilty of or involved in any act of moral turpitude or crime of violence he is not suitable or fit to be taken in the Police Service. Moral Turpitude: Any act which indicates mala fide mental conduct such as theft, or criminal misconduct towards a woman, or forgery or wilful suppression of information (particularly adverse information) about the candidate etc. , would be covered under moral turpitude. Cases involving atrocities on Scheduled Caste/tribe, and Women (Dowry Cases) would also fall under this category. Violence: Crime of violence include assault (Secs. 323, 325, 326 etc. IPC) rioting (Secs. 147 & 148 etc. IPC) and more serious offences like Secs. 307 & 302 etc. Hence a candidate/applicant involved in any such case is not eligible for Police Service. A point is raised as to what should be done where a criminal case has been registered against a candidate or challenged in a Court but judgment has not been given. In such cases also the candidates cannot be taken into Police. But if after the trial the candidate is acquitted honourably then the candidate may be considered for recruitment into Police by taking the approval of the next higher officer or to the appointing authority. But as candidates who are very aged are not suitable for induction in the Police the department need not wait indefinitely. If the honourable acquittal is produced within 3 years of the date of application, such a candidate may be so considered. As per Government order of D. O. P. (Personnel) (Ka-2) Circular No. F. 7 (1) DOP/ka-2/77 dated 31. 8. 1977 and No. F. 2 (22) Personnel/ka-2/87 dated 11. 10. 1989 only those persons whose Character Certificates have been found to be in order should be considered for appointment. These instructions should be kept in mind and strictly complied with. All such cases may be decided in the light of these, clarifications. Now I proceed to consider facts of each individual case. Writ Petition No. 2843/98
(3.) THE petitioner-Khama Ram Vishnoi was selected on the post of Constable Driver in pursuance to the advertisement dated 14. 10. 1997 but he was not given appointment and the persons lower in the merit list were appointed on 30. 3. 1998. THE petitioner met the authorities concerned and was informed that as punishment of fine was imposed on him a criminal trial he was not appointed. Admittedly the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Karauli vide its judgment dated 1. 10. 1996 convicted the petitioner u/s. 279 r/w Sec. 337 IPC and imposed fine in the sum of Rs. 500/-and Rs. 300/-respectively. THE respondents submitted reply with the averments that the petitioner-Khama Ram Vishnoi suppressed this information in the application form and did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case. Writ Petition No. 2966/1998 Petitioner-Bajrang Lal was selected as Constable and found place in the merit list at S. No. 9 but his appointment letter was not issued by the respondents. The petitioner met the respondent No. 2 who informed the petitioner that he was not given appointment on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him. The petitioner submitted representation before the Deputy Inspector General of Police Kota seeking appointment stating therein that when first information was lodged against the petitioner he was a minor and was not at all involved in the offence. It was also requested that the petitioner was ready to file undertaking that in case he is convicted in the criminal case he would leave his claim. In the reply, the respondents averred that in the application form submitted by the petitioner he was required to state information in Col. 17 as to whether he was/is involved in any criminal case or was arrested? But the petitioner made false and wrong information regarding involvement in criminal cases. In the said column the petitioner wrote `nil' against that column No. 17. The petitioner suppressed information regarding pendency of the criminal cases No. 66/93 u/ss. 147,148,149, 452 & 302 IPC and u/s. 3 of SC/st Act and case No. 294/95 u/ss. 451,323 & 341 IPC and also his arrest in the said cases. Writ Petition No. 2992/1998 Petitioner-Babulal Meena was selected on the post of Constable Driver. When appointment letter was not issued to him he approached the concerned authorities but no specific reason for denial of appointment was assigned. The petitioner thereafter submitted application to the respondents for giving him appointment on the said post and also served a legal notice. In response to said letter the petitioner received communication wherein it was stated that as the petitioner was involved in a criminal case and did not mention this fact in the application form therefore in pursuance to the Notification dated 29. 4. 1995 the petitioner was not found suitable for appointment. Admittedly FIR was registered against the petitioner u/s. 3/6 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 was registered against the petitioner and in the said case the petitioner was given benefit of Sec. 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. In another criminal case No. 135/1995 a compromise was entered between the parties on 6. 3. 1995 and the petitioner was acquitted for the offence u/s. 337 IPC but u/s. 279 IPC the petitioner was punished with a fine of Rs. 300/ -. In criminal case No. 270/1995, the petitioner was left on probation u/s. 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Writ Petition No. 2499/1998 ;