Service Law: Appointment for the post of Police Constable – Disclosure in the verification form – Appellant while applying for the post of police constable disclosed in verification form the fact of his being tried for offence under s.498A IPC, for which he was later acquitted – His candidature was rejected – Appellant filed writ petition before the High Court – Single Judge of the High Court set aside the cancellation of candidature with all consequential benefits – Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside order of Single Judge – Hence instant appeal – Held: In the verification form itself he declared that he was tried for the offence under s.498A of IPC and as such there was no supression of facts – Appointment should not be denied solely on the ground that he was tried under s.498A of IPC and that too, for the offence, alleged to have happened long ago and for which he was even acquitted seven years before he applied for the post of Constable – On the principle of no work no pay, the appellant held entitled to all the benefits from the date of actual appointment.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The offence for which he was tried ultimately resulted into acquittal had arisen out of the matrimonial dispute which ultimately ended in settlement out of the court. Under the circumstances and in the peculiar facts of the case, the appellant could not have been denied the appointment solely on the aforesaid ground that he was tried for the offence under Section 498A of IPC and that too, for the offence alleged to have happened in the year 2001 for which he was even acquitted in the year 2006 may be on settlement (between husband and wife). [Para 6][845E-F]
2. The Division Bench of the High Court has materially erred in denying the appointment to the appellant on the post of Constable and has materially erred in quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge. However, at the same time, on the principle of no work no pay, the appellant shall be entitled to all the benefits from the date of actual appointment. The respondent(s) are directed to appoint the appellant to the post of Constable, as otherwise, he was found to be meritorious and eligible for the post of Constable within a period of four weeks from today. However, it is observed that he shall be entitled to all the benefits from the date of actual appointment only. [Paras 8 and 9][846-B-D]
Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC
471 : [2016] 7 SCR 445 : [2016] 7 SCR 445 - relied on.
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Anr. v. Anil Kanwariya (2021) 10 SCC 136 – held inapplicable.
Rohit Naresh Agarwal v. Union of India (2013) 204 DLT 401 (DB) – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.