Rohit Pradhan | 9th December 2019
Balram Meena v. Railway Protection Force & Anr., WP(C) 10240/2017
FACTS
Petitioner applied for the post of Constable. He was appointed as a Constable by a letter dated 1st October 2014. By order dated 15th June 2015 his selection got cancelled on the ground that he suppressed the fact that he was involved in a criminal case. Though the Petitioner was acquitted from the criminal charges on the ground of benefit of doubt u/s 147 and 149 IPC and for offence u/s 323 and 341, Petitioner was acquitted on the account of ‘compromise’.
This is the third round of litigation in the Delhi High Court. In the first round when the said order was challenged, HC demanded the issue of Show Cause notice to the Petitioner. The decision of the Rail board didn’t change. It was again challenged to this Court, Court directed the respondent to give fresh order within 12 weeks. Rail Board’s order didn’t change, this time also. Hence this present challenge against the order passed by the Respondent.
HELD
Court relied upon the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India[1], where Court held that
“If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.
In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.”
Hence Respondent’s decision shall not be interfered with.
[wpdm_package id=’1971′][1] Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471
Leave a Reply