- (1.) The prayer in the present petition is for appointment of the petitioner on the post of constable on compassionate ground. The facts in short are that father of the petitioner died on 09.01.2007 while still in service. The petitioner filed a representation. However, the department vide letter dated 9.5.2007 asked the petitioner to mention the post. The petitioner submitted his application mentioning the post of constable on which he wanted to be appointed on compassionate ground. On 18.06.2007, the respondents rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that a criminal case was pending against the petitioner. However, the petitioner was finally acquitted vide order dated 30.03.2012. In spite of the acquittal, the application of the petitioner was once again rejected on 14.12.2012.
(2.) Reply has been filed. As per the reply, the petitioner was involved in criminal case under Section 376, 366 and 511. No doubt he has been acquitted but his acquittal is on account of benefit of doubt having been granted to him and is not an honourable acquittal. It is stated that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to the post. The standard expected of a person intending to serve in uniform service is quite distinct from other services.
(3.) Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Salim v. State of Rajasthan (SLP No. 782/2004) decided on 10.12.2009, wherein, it was held that a person who is involved in a criminal case certainly cannot be taken into the police service. The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of State of M.P. & Ors. v. Parvez Khan (Civil Appeal No. 10613 of 2014) decided on 1.12.2014 wherein in similar set of circumstances, the Apex Court set aside the order of Division Bench of the M.P. High Court and then allowed the appeal of the State by refusing to interfere with the order of the department rejecting the claim of the respondents for recruitment to the police service by way of giving him compassionate appointment. After relying on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & Anr. v. Mehar Singh, 2013 7 SCC 685 observed:-- "12. In Mehar Singh , the question considered by this Court was as follows: 18. The question before this Court is whether the candidature of the respondents who had made a clean breast of their involvement in a criminal case by mentioning this fact in their application/attestation form while applying for a post of Constable in Delhi Police, who were provisionally selected subject to verification of their antecedents and who were subsequently acquitted/discharged in the criminal case, could be cancelled by the Screening Committee of the Delhi Police on the ground that they are not found suitable for appointment to the post of Constable. After considering the rival contention, the Could held:-- 35. The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the society. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged in the criminal case, that acquittal or discharge order will have to be examined to see whether he has been completely exonerated in the case because even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In recent times, the image of the police force is tarnished. Instances of police personnel behaving in a wayward manner by misusing power are in public domain and are a matter of concern. The reputation of the police force has taken a beating. In such a situation, we would not like to dilute the importance and efficacy of a mechanism like the Screening Committee created by the Delhi Police to ensure that persons who are likely to erode its credibility do not enter the police force. At the same time, the Screening Committee must be alive to the importance of the trust reposed in it and must treat all candidates with an even hand." 13. From the above observations of this Court, it is clear that a candidate to be recruited to the police service must be worthy of confidence and must be a person of utmost rectitude and must have impeccable. character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was completely exonerated. Persons who are likely to erode the credibility of the police ought not to enter the police force. No doubt the Screening Committee has not been constituted in the case considered by this Court, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the Respondent, in the present case, the Superintendent of Police has gone into the matter. The Superintendent of Police is the appointing authority. There is no allegation of mala fides against the person taking the said decision nor the decision is shown to be perverse or irrational. There is no material to show that the appellant was falsely implicated. Basis of impugned judgment is acquittal for want of evidence or discharge based on compounding." Returning back to the facts of the present case, the petitioner too herein is seeking compassionate appointment on the post of constable in police force. An FIR under Section 376, 366 and 511 IPC was registered against him. The allegations are of moral turpitude. The petitioner was acquitted of the said charge only on account of benefit of doubt granted to him. Applying the test laid down in the case of State of M.P. & Ors. , this Court finds no ground to interfere in the order rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointment on the compassionate ground on the post of constable. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.;