‘Classic case of misuse of power’: HC imposes Rs 50,000 cost on Haryana for denying appointment

Rapping Haryana for “misuse of power”, “reprehensible attitude” and disregard for judicial orders, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed Rs 50,000 for dragging a candidate through “multiple rounds of litigation” despite clear findings of innocence in a criminal case registered after submission of his application for recruitment as a constable.

Allowing candidate Surender’s petition filed through counsel Rajat Mor, Justice Jagmohan Bansal directed the issuance of appointment letter within two weeks, besides granting notional service benefits from the date similarly placed candidates joined duty.

Holding the case as a “classic example of misuse of power and abuse of process of law,” Justice Bansal observed: “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 Bench also questioned the respondents’ reliance on instructions dated September 27, 2024, issued by the Director-General of Police, long after the verification process had concluded 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,” the court asserted.

The Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that the petitioner had applied for the post pursuant to an advertisement dated December 30, 2020. He was discharged by the trial court on February 26, 2024, in a case after the investigating agency found him innocent. Yet, the authorities proceeded to reject his candidature — despite having earlier declared him innocent in a supplementary report.

Justice Bansal asserted: “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, Ludhiana.”

Referring to the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on appointments and pending cases, the court observed: “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.”

Justice Bansal added 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. This is a fit case for imposing costs upon the respondent. Accordingly, costs of Rs 50,000 is imposed upon the respondent,” the Bench concluded.