Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has made it clear that an individual accused of stalking and harassing a girl through obscene gestures cannot be deemed suitable for joining the police force, even if the victim and her father later altered their testimony in court, resulting in his acquittal. “The petitioner seeks a position within a disciplined force entrusted with the critical responsibility of upholding public order in society. Consequently, his acquittal, solely due to the victim turning hostile, does not warrant his appointment as a constable in the Haryana police,” the court observed. A division bench comprising Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Lapita Banerji passed these orders while dismissing an appeal filed by Ramji (single name), a resident of Panipat district in Haryana. The appellant in this case was selected as a constable in Haryana police for which the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) advertised posts in 2018.
He was also issued a constabulary number. In his application form, the appellant disclosed that an FIR dated June 1, 2016, under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was registered against him at Police Station Samalkha, Panipat. When the status of the said FIR was verified by the state, it was revealed that he was acquitted by the trial court through a judgment dated March 17, 2017. However, it was found that the acquittal was because the victim and her father did not follow the prosecution’s line. Based on the verification report, the state invoked Rule 12.18(3)(e) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, and dispensed with the appellant’s services. His plea against the dismissal of his services was dismissed by a single bench of the HC, after which he approached the division bench in appeal. In his appeal, he mainly contended that he duly disclosed the fact of the criminal case and his acquittal. Once the trial court, after considering the entire case of the prosecution, acquitted the appellant, and that too much prior to his applying for the post in question, the case of the appellant was fully covered in his favour under Rule 12.18(3)(c) of the Rules. The appellant, at the time of registration of the FIR in question, was only 20 years of age and was accused of only following a 16-year-old girl, and for that, the appellant should not be punished in a manner which would ultimately affect his entire life. It was also stated that the trial court, while acquitting the appellant, did not opine that his acquittal was on account of the victim and her father having turned hostile, and therefore, Rule 12.18(3)(e) of the Rules, which was made the basis by the state for dispensing with the appellant’s services, would not apply in the appellant’s case. The state govt, however, opposed his plea. After hearing all the parties, the bench held that the appellant cannot be granted the benefit of Rule 12.18(3)(c) as his acquittal was primarily based on the victim and her father having turned hostile while appearing in the appellant’s trial.