Vikash vs. State Of Haryana & Others

Held

The High Court disposed of the present writ petition in the same terms as CWP-17084-2019 (Suresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others), which dealt with a similar controversy. While the specific findings and reasoning of the cited judgment are not detailed in this excerpt, the implication is that the Court found grounds to allow or grant relief to the petitioner, or at least to reconsider the decision of the Competent Authority. The ratio decidendi would likely revolve around the interpretation of 'moral turpitude' in the context of police recruitment, the effect of acquittal in criminal cases on character verification, and the application of departmental rules and government instructions. The operative direction would be to follow the decision in the earlier writ petition, which would typically involve setting aside the impugned order and directing reconsideration of the petitioner's candidature.

Facts

The petitioner, Vikash, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 28.12.2017 by the Competent Authority, which denied him appointment as a Constable Male (General Duty) in Haryana Police. The denial was based on the petitioner's acquittal in a criminal case (FIR No.190 dated 28.03.11 under Sections 323, 356, 379, 506, 365, and 342 IPC) which the authority deemed to fall under moral turpitude. Additionally, the authority cited the petitioner's concealment of facts in his verification cum attestation form, violating PPR 12.18(2), and a Haryana Government instruction dated 02/02/1973 regarding offences of moral turpitude. The High Court noted that a similar controversy was decided in CWP-17084-2019.

Key Issues

1. Whether the denial of appointment to the petitioner for an offence falling under moral turpitude, despite his acquittal, is legally sustainable, particularly in light of the Haryana Government instruction dated 02/02/1973 and PPR 12.18(2)? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner likely argued that an acquittal should not lead to disqualification, especially when the alleged offence is not proven. He may have contended that the interpretation of 'moral turpitude' by the authority was too broad or misapplied. The petitioner might have also argued that the concealment charge was not sufficiently established or that the information provided was accurate given the acquittal. Respondents' Arguments: The State of Haryana likely argued that the acquittal does not absolve the candidate from the character scrutiny required for police appointments. They would have emphasized that the nature of the FIR and the alleged acts, even if resulting in acquittal, demonstrate conduct unbecoming of a police officer and fall under the purview of moral turpitude as defined by the government instructions. The concealment of facts in the attestation form would also be presented as a valid ground for disqualification.