MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.---Through this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to issue him appointment order for the post of "Constable" as being at Sr.No,72 in the final merit list.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No,2 through an advertisement in the newspaper invited applications for making recruitments in different districts of the province of Punjab against the posts of male and female constables. The petitioner applied for the said post. He passed the NTS test as well as written test of the Police Department and stood at Sr.No,72 in the final merit list.
But he was refused appointment on the ground that during character verification he was found involved in a criminal case, and he concealed this fact in his affidavit which was part of his Application Form.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was selected for appointment on merit after going through the due process of recruitment; that he cannot be deprived of his legitimate right of appointment merely on the ground that a criminal case stand registered against him; that the fact of the matter is that an FIR bearing No,50/2016 was got registered at Police Station, Chak Amroo, under sections 148/149/337-A(ii), P.P.0 in which he was also involved falsely; that during investigation he was found innocent and placed in column No,2 of the challan report under section 173 of the Cr.P.C.; that he did not give any wrong affidavit in this behalf and the respondents have illegally and unlawfully withheld his appointment letter; and that a vested right has been created in favour of the petitioner, which cannot be taken away merely-On a flimsy ground.
4. On the contrary, the learned AAG submits that the respondents'-Department is a disciplined force and the main duty of its incumbents is to maintain law and order and to give security and protection to the citizens; that such a sensitive department cannot afford the risk of appointing in its disciplined force a person who has been involved in a criminal case; and that the petitioner concealed the factum of his involvement in the criminal case and gave wrong affidavit in his Application Form; that according to the Recruitment Policy issued by the Provincial Police Officer, under letter No,SE-IV/7317-70/II, dated 26.6.2014 such a person could not be appointed as a Constable.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. In the report and parawise comments submitted by respondent No,3 it has been stated that during police verification the petitioner was found involved in case FIR No,5, dated 10.11.2016, registered under sections 337-A(ii)/148/149, P.P.C., at Police Station, Chak Amroo, District Gujranwala. He has been refused appointment mainly on the basis of a letter issued by the Provincial Police Officer, vide No, SE-IV/7317-70/II, dated 26.6.2014. Before making any comment on the said policy letter and its application on the case of the present petitioner, I would like to reproduce the said letter hereunder: "GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB POLICE DEPARTMENT SE-IV/7317-70/II Dated 26.06.2014 To All Heads of Police in Punjab.
Subject: RECRUITMENT OF CONSTABLE/LADY CONSTABLES IN PUNJAB POLICE DEPARTMENT INVOLVED IN CRIMINAL CASES: The competent authority has decided in principal that all those candidates who during character verification, have been found involved in criminal cases (either under trial or acquitted on multiple grounds) shall not be appointed in Police Department as constable.
2. Please ensure compliance of this direction and deviation thereof shall be viewed seriously.
Sd/ (FAISAL ALI RAJA)
DIG/Establishment (acting) for Provincial Police Officer/IGP, Punjab, Lahore."
7. No doubt the petitioner was nominated in the aforementioned case FIR No,50/16, but during investigation the Investigating Officer found him innocent and while submitting incomplete challan in the Court placed his name in column No,2. According to the opinion of the Investigating Officer as given in the incomplete challan/report under section 173, Cr.P.C. the petitioner was only found present at the place of occurrence. During investigation the allegation of involvement of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence was not proved on record. It is thus manifest that case of the petitioner does not came within the restrictions imposed by the competent Authority through the aforesaid policy letter. The petitioner never faced any trial in the said criminal case. His involvement was not proved on record during investigation or as a result of any criminal trial by the competent court of law. Someone's "nomination" cannot be equated with "involvement" in a criminal case. A person is nominated in a criminal case FIR on the mere statement/application of the complainant, the contents whereof may be correct or incorrect and baseless. On the contrary, involvement of an accused in a criminal case is prima facie established on the basis of investigation and collection of incriminating information to hold the accused guilty or otherwise by the Investigating Officer and then the matter is sent for trial by a competent court of law. So, mere nomination of any person in any FIR does not mean that he is involved in the occurrence. In this regard bracketed words "either under trial or acquitted on multiple grounds" mentioned in the Recruitment Policy letter are of much significance. An analytical approach of these words indicates that in the matter of holding a person to be involved in a criminal case his facing "trial" and even consequential "acquittal on multiple grounds" is a sine qua non. In the Recruitment Policy determination of involvement in a criminal case has not only been subjected to trial of the said case but also stretched to the consequential acquittal on multiple grounds. Nothing of the above happened in the case of the present petitioner. He was merely nominated by his opponents, apparently with mala fide intent to falsely implicate him in the criminal case, however, on preliminary inquiry the investigating officer found him to be not involved in the occurrence, hence placed him in column No,2 of the challan submitted in the Court under section 173 of the Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, the respondents have wrongly held the petitioner to be involved in a criminal case disentitling him to his legitimate right of appointment on merit. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner at the time of submitting application Form for appointment as Constable has not concealed any fact or given any wrong affidavit. The respondents were not thus justified in refusing his appointment as Constable on such grounds and reasons which were not sustainable in the eye of law.
8. For what has been discussed above, the instant petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to issue appointment letter to B the petitioner immediately.