Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 531 (MP)

Omprakash Chouhan v. State of M. P.

2015-05-05

S.R.WAGHMARE

body2015
ORDER : 1. All the four petitions are dealt together since common question is involved in all the petitions. 2. By these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners Omprakash Chouhan, Manoharlal Sharma, Sandeep Pandey and Kamal Singh Verma have challenged the order dated 22.8.2014 passed by the respondent Superintendent of Police, District Dewas denying the eligibility of the petitioners to the selected post of Constable (GD) in the recruitment year 2013. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners have applied for the post of Constable (GD) in the District Police Force in the recruitment year 2013 (second) and they had cleared all the physical tests and issued the admit card. The petitioners were exempted from the written examination as they have completed 13 years of service as Nagar Sainik. The Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board issued a selection order to the petitioners as they were selected for the post of Constable (GD). The petitioners were allotted District Dewas and they have also filed the affidavit regarding their character verification. It is also submitted that there were three criminal cases No.1582/08 for offence under sections 323, 294, 506, 34 of the IPC, Criminal Case No.1162/10 offence under sections 294, 452, 323/34, 324/34 of the IPC and Criminal Case No.927/12 for offence u/S 323/34, 294,325/34 of the IPC have been registered against petitioner Omprakash, a Criminal Case No.61/13 for offence under sections 366, 376(1), 506 of the IPC has been registered against petitioner Manoharlal Sharma, two Criminal Cases No.13393/98 for offence under section 324, 294, 506 of the IPC and No.6692/07 for offence under sections 324,323, 294 and 506 of the IPC have been registered against petitioner Sandeep Pandey and a Sessions Trial No.103/2000 for offence under section 376 of the IPC has been registered against petitioner Kamal Singh Verma. However, all the petitioners have been honourarily acquitted from the said offences by the judgment dated 21.10.2008, 17.5.2012, 25.2.2014, 19.9.2013, 25.6.2002, 7.3.2007 and 22.8.2000 respectively and the copies of judgment of the acquittal are filed along with the affidavit. However, all the petitioners have been honourarily acquitted from the said offences by the judgment dated 21.10.2008, 17.5.2012, 25.2.2014, 19.9.2013, 25.6.2002, 7.3.2007 and 22.8.2000 respectively and the copies of judgment of the acquittal are filed along with the affidavit. However, the respondent Superintendent of Police, Dewas has passed the impugned order dated 22.8.2014 intimating the respondent Additional Director General of Police (Recruitment/Selection), PHQ, Bhopal that the petitioners were found guilty for the offence of moral turpitude and hence, they are ineligible for the post of Constable (GD) and consequently the petitioners were also precluded from joining their services. And hence, the present petitions. 4. Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged the fact that the petitioners have been acquitted from the offences and hence it cannot be said that the act of the petitioners was of moral turpitude. Counsel further submitted that the acquittal order is passed by the Judge after recording the evidence of prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and defence witnesses and only then when the conclusion has been arrived at and the accused have been acquitted. Counsel further submitted that there was a compromise between the parties and in this light also the petitioners cannot be faulted with. Counsel submitted that despite having qualification the petitioners are being deprived of their services. To bolster his submissions, Counsel placed reliance on Dinesh Singh Parihar v. State of M.P. [Writ Petition No.896/2014(s)], whereby this Court was pleased to held as follows : “Resultantly, the impugned order dated 11.11.2013 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to take appropriate steps for issuance of appropriate orders to appointment of the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order keeping in view his placement in the merit list. The petitioner shall be entitled for seniority and all other consequential benefits. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.” Counsel also placed reliance on Rakesh Sharma v. State of M.P. and others [Writ Petition No.9913/2012), whereby the same ratio has been upheld by this Court. Hence, counsel prayed that the present petitions be also allowed and the same benefit be extended to the present petitioners. 5. Counsel for the respondents/State, on the other hand, has filed reply to the petition. Hence, counsel prayed that the present petitions be also allowed and the same benefit be extended to the present petitioners. 5. Counsel for the respondents/State, on the other hand, has filed reply to the petition. He has pointed out that the Screening Committee did not find the petitioners fit for the appointment and informed the same vide letter dated 31.7.2014 to the Superintendent of Police, Dewas (Annexure R-1). Counsel submitted that in respect of the similar controversy a specific reply is filed on behalf of State of M.P. in Writ Petition No.6610/2014 before the Gwalior Bench and the Gwalior Bench has held in favour of the respondents/State under identical circumstances. Counsel also pointed out that the record of the petitioners is contrary to the M.P. Police Regulation of 53(c) since the petitioners were found guilty of moral turpitude. Hence, counsel prayed for dismissal of the petitions. 6. On perusing the aforesaid submissions, I find that the apex Court in the said SLP Commissioner of Police New Delhi and another v. Mehar Singh has held thus : “31. In the ultimate analysis, we are of the view that the opinion formed by the Screening Committee in both these cases with is endorsed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Recruitment) Delhi that both the respondents are not suitable for being appointed in the Delhi Police Force does not meant any interference. It is legally sustainable. The Tribunal and the High Court, in our view, erred in setting aside the order of cancellation of the respondents candidature. In the circumstances, the appeals are allowed. The orders of the Delhi High Court impugned in both the appeals are set aside. The cancellation of candidature of the respondents Mehar Singh and Shani Kumar is upheld.” I find that this case has been considered by the learned Judge of this Court in the matter of Dinesh Singh Parihar (Writ Petition No.896/2014) (supra), (Annexure P-9). The orders of the Delhi High Court impugned in both the appeals are set aside. The cancellation of candidature of the respondents Mehar Singh and Shani Kumar is upheld.” I find that this case has been considered by the learned Judge of this Court in the matter of Dinesh Singh Parihar (Writ Petition No.896/2014) (supra), (Annexure P-9). However, this Court has held that the case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi (supra), pertains to appointment of Delhi Police Establishment Act and there was a Standing Order Annexure P-9 is applicable in the said case; whereas in this case there is no such Standing Order in existence, on the contrary the Madhya Pradesh Manual and Regulations under the Regulation-54, even provides for appointment of a person, who has been convicted with the approval of Inspector General of Police on the post of Constable and therefore, in light of the aforesaid Regulations and also in light of the fact that there is no such Standing Order in existence in the present case, which has been considered by the apex Court in the aforesaid case. It is informed that the matter of Dinesh Singh (supra), is the subject matter of Writ Appeal No.724/2014 State of M.P. v. Dinesh Singh), and is pending consideration before this Court. 7. In view of the above, it is directed that the case of the petitioners shall be considered in terms of Dinesh Singh (supra), and if found eligible the petitioners shall also be granted the same benefit. In case of rejection the respondent/competent authority shall pass a reasoned order in writing. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the petitions are partly allowed to the extent herein above indicated. 9. Original order be retained in the record of Writ Petition No. 6818/2014 and a copy thereof be placed in the record of Writ Petition Nos. 6819/2014, 6820/2014 and 4576/2014. No order as to costs. .............