'Classical Case Of Power Abuse', High Court Imposes ₹50k Cost On Haryana Govt For Denying Appointment To Candidate Despite Acquittal In Criminal Case

Calling it a “classical case of power abuse,” the Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the Haryana Government for denying appointment to a candidate despite his acquittal in a criminal case. The Court noted that the candidate was compelled to approach the court in three separate rounds of litigation to assert his rightful claim.The candidate was denied the appointment to the post of Constable. During verification process the authorities submitted that an FIR is pending. The authority conducting verification "did not think it appropriate to ascertain actual status of FIR" and mechanically informed that FIR on fraud case is pending against the petitioner. However, the Trial Court had already discharged the petitioner.Justice Jagmohan Bansal said, "This is a classical case of misuse of power and abuse of process of law. The officers dealing with the matter despite repeated orders of this Court have shown reprehensible attitude just to stick to their opinion. It shows that they have scant regard for the orders of Constitutional Courts."The Court also noted that, "Unfortunately, the State, on one hand filed report declaring him innocent and on the other hand, after order of Trial Court filed revision which is still pending before District Court..."It further found that in another plea was filed by the petitioner, wherein the Court had directed the authorities to consider his case in light of Apex Court's decision, however the authorities relied on Law Officer's opinion."By relying upon opinion of Assistant District Attorney, the Commandant has grossly violated orders of this Court and attempted to deflect from his duty. Had respondent applied his mind, need of third round of litigation could have been obviated," it added.Justice Bansal highlighted that, the advertisement in question was issued on 30.12.2020 and verification of antecedents was conducted in October'2023."It is surprising that respondent has considered instructions of September'2024 whereas verification was conducted in October'2023. The respondent was duty bound to consider applicable Rules instead of instructions of Director General of Police," said the Court.Referring to Ravindra Kumar vs. State of U.P. the Court opined that, "It is evident that the Supreme Court has held that authority should consider nature of offence, timing and nature of the criminal case, over all consideration of the judgment of acquittal, nature of query in the verification form, socio-economic strata of the individual and other antecedents of the candidate.”It further said the authorities, however, failed to apply even “a single aspect” of the apex court's mandate “only because of narrow and limited appreciation of judgment of Supreme Court. The respondent unnecessarily dragged the petitioner to multiple rounds of litigation. "Stating that "the respondent unnecessarily dragged the petitioner to multiple rounds of litigation. This is a fit case for imposing costs upon the respondent. Accordingly, costs of Rs. 50,000/- is imposed upon the respondent," the Court directed the authorities issue him appointment letter within two weeks from order.Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Raman Sharma, Addl. A.G., HaryanaTitle: Surender v. State of Haryana and othersClick here to read/download the order

'Classical Case Of Power Abuse', High Court Imposes ₹50k Cost On Haryana Govt For Denying Appointment To Candidate Despite Acquittal In Criminal Case

Aiman J. Chishti

Tags