Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) THE question for our consideration is as to whether initiation/pendency of criminal proceedings before a competent court of law would be sufficient to deny entry into government service, which we need to dwell in the instant proceeding.
(2.) PETITIONER present in person and none present for the respondents despite notices of the present petition being served and Mr. S.S. Raghav, Senior Standing Counsel for Union of India put in appearance on behalf of the respondents when the matter came up before the court on 10.02.2014 and after it was heard for quite some time, interim protection was granted to the petitioner -restraining respondents from taking any adverse action in regard to final selection of the petitioner, pending proceedings before this court and continuously for the last four hearings, the respondents abstained their appearance without any cause and no request was made but the petitioner, in person appeared continuously in the last four hearings which took place on 16.07.2014 followed with 23.07.2014, 11.08.2014 & finally on the day when it was concluded on 13.08.2014 and since counsel for parties abstained from putting their appearance, the petitioner was heard in person and the material on record was taken into consideration by this court. Finally the arguments were concluded and order was reserved on 13.08.2014. The brief facts, culled out from the record are that the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Tribe and appeared in the Civil Services Examination, 2009 conducted by Union Public Service Commission for appointment in All India Services, Central Services Group -A & Group -B and other allied services. After qualifying the preliminary and main examinations, he was called for interview and personality test vide communication dt. 22.03.2010 and after qualifying the interview and personality test, he was allotted Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Island, Lakshya Deep, Daman & Diu and Dadra & Nagar Haveli Public Service (Group -B) (DANIPS). The aforesaid allocation was made in the year 2010, which is evident from communication dt. 25.01.2011, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs to the Home Secretary, Government of Rajasthan and so also to District Collector, Hanumangarh. The petitioner was very hopeful and full of joy that he has been selected for Class -I Services which is always an ambition and dream of the participant/applicant in getting public employment.
(3.) AFTER qualifying the main examination and prior to his appearing in the interview -cum -personality test, the petitioner got married with Suman @ Purnima Meena but to his dismay, their matrimonial relations could not continue and immediately after marriage and as alleged by him, she was not at all interested from Day -1 in residing with him and just within three months, there was a matrimonial discord and she lodged FIR No. 93 against him at Mahila Thana, District Hanumangarh on 28.05.2010 for offence u/S. 498A, 406 & 323 IPC but since the marriage took place at Jaipur and cause of alleged incident, if any, had taken place at Jaipur, the FIR No. 93/2010 of Mahila Thana, Hanumangarh was transferred to Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (East) and registered as FIR No. 75 dt. 30.06.2010.;