Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 27 (MP)

Sanjay Chouhan v. State Of M. P. And Others

2020-01-07

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2020
JUDGMENT Vandana Kasrekar, J. - The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the orders dated 3/09/2014 and 2/02/2019 thereby rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Police Constable after his due selection in an open competition, on the ground of involvement of the petitioner in the criminal cases. 2. That, an advertisement was issued by the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Police Constable. The petitioner submitted his application as Scheduled Caste candidate. Sthe petitioner successfully cleared the written examination. On the basis of merit, he was declared qualified for second stage i.e. for undergoing physical proficiency. The petitioner was ultimately selected for the post of Constable(GD) under Scheduled Caste category in the Police Constable Recruitment Test, 2012. 3. The petitioner submits that after his selection by the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board in the Police Constable Recruitment Test, 2012 for the post of Constable (GD), the petitioner was called upon to fill up the choice as regards posting in the order of preference which the petitioner did by submitting Police Constable Choice filling form, 2012. After his selection for the post of Constable(GD), the petitioner has sworn an affidavit disclosing factum of registration of criminal cases against him as also his consequential acquittal from those criminal cases with further declaration that no criminal case is pending in any other court of law or in any police stations against him at the relevant point of time. 4. That, there were two criminal cases registered against the petitioner for petty offences wherein the petitioner was falsely implicated and those were the cases registered against the petitioner when he was only 20 years old. In those cases, upon a compromise being entered into between the complainant, the petitioner and other coaccused persons has acquitted the petitioner of all the charges levelled against him and one of the case is relating to domestic dispute between the family members itself, which has also been amicably settled between the parties and none of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner i.e., and the same do not involve element of moral turpitude. 5. The petitioner submits that on account of his involvement in the criminal cases, when he was not being issued the appointment order on the post of Constable(GD). 5. The petitioner submits that on account of his involvement in the criminal cases, when he was not being issued the appointment order on the post of Constable(GD). The petitioner has approached to this Court by filing W.P. No.13811/2013. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 12/03/2014 with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation by passing a detailed and speaking order within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Despite communication of the order passed by this Court, whereby the respondents were not complying with the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner, therefore, approached to this Court by filing a Contempt Petition(Civil) No.445/2016. During pendency of the aforesaid contempt petition, the impugned order has been passed on 3/09/2014, thereby rejecting the representation of the petitioner. He therefore also filed a writ petition and the respondent no.3 vide impugned order dated 2/02/2019 has again rejected the candidature of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment order of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that in the cases in which the petitioner has been acquitted were on the basis of the compromise and in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Another Vs. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685 , wherein the Supreme Court has only considered the case of the candidates acquitted under the category of "Hon'ble Acquittal" and who are fit for employment of the police service. It is further rejected on the ground that it is not in public interest to appoint persons from criminal background into police service as the candidate aspired to be in police service has to be on good reputation and character. He further submits that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected during pendency of the contempt petition. As the case of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent, he therefore, again approached to this Court by filing W.P. No.4141/2017. He further submits that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected during pendency of the contempt petition. As the case of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent, he therefore, again approached to this Court by filing W.P. No.4141/2017. This Court disposed of this writ petition vide order dated 7/09/2018 and set aside the order dated 3/09/2014 and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 1 SCC 268 7. While rejecting the representation/case of the petitioner, the respondents have not considered the Circular dated 5/06/2003 issued by the State Government. As per the said circular, as the petitioner was acquitted from the criminal cases in respect of petty offences, therefore, the respondents are bound to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment. Out of the criminal cases registered against the petitioner, one of them is arising out of family dispute which is between the family members and other cases are committed in heat of passion and none of these circumstances were considered by the respondents while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner despite directions issued by this Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others(supra). 8. That the respondent no.3 while rejecting the claim of the petitioner has relied upon the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh Pawar Vs. High Court of M.P. & Anr, (2018) 2 MPLJ 419 wherein the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Court of Bombay in the case of Monammed Imran Vs. State of Maharashtra,2018 SCCOnlineSC 1943 was considered, which later on overruled and set aside by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Imran Vs. State of Maharashtra(supra) and this fact has been completely ignored and overlooked by the respondent no.3 while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. In the light of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders be set aside and the case of petitioner be considered for appointment on the said post. 9. The respondent nos.1 to 3 have filed their reply and in the reply they have stated that the case of the petitioner has been duly considered by the respondent no.3 on 2/02/2019. 9. The respondent nos.1 to 3 have filed their reply and in the reply they have stated that the case of the petitioner has been duly considered by the respondent no.3 on 2/02/2019. The said representation has been considered in the light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh(supra) as well as the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ashutosh Pawar(supra). The said decision taken by the respondent no.3 was not mechanical but a conscious decision after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case in proper perspective. It is a pre-condition in the police service that candidate should be of worthy confidence of an utmost rectitude and must have impeccable character and integrity. The respondents have further further submitted that the petitioner has been discharged from the charges under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain only ion the basis of compromise between the parties. The said discharge of the petitioner was not fair and honorable acquittal. The respondents further submits that vide Circular dated 5/06/2003, the offence involved in the present case, comes into the category of "Moral Turpitude". It is further submitted that in view of the provisions of M.P. Police Regulation Para 53(C), the petitioner is not fit for the post of Police Constable on the ground that the acquittal of the petitioner is on the basis of compromise so he cannot be appointed as a member of Police Force, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. In the present case, the petitioner has submitted an application for appointment on the post of Police Constable (GD). He appeared on the said examination and successfully cleared the written examination. On the basis of his merit, he was declared qualified for second stage that is for undergoing physical proficiency test and the petitioner was ultimately selected for the post of Constable (GD) under Scheduled Caste category in the Police Constable Recruitment Test, 2012. The petitioner submits that after his selection in the Police Constable Recruitment Test, 2012 for the post of Constable (GD), the petitioner was called upon to fill up the choice as regards posting in the order of preference which the petitioner did. The petitioner submits that after his selection in the Police Constable Recruitment Test, 2012 for the post of Constable (GD), the petitioner was called upon to fill up the choice as regards posting in the order of preference which the petitioner did. After his selection for the post of Constable (GD), the petitioner has sworn an affidavit disclosing factum of registration of criminal cases against him as also the consequential acquittal from those criminal cases and further submits that there were two criminal cases registered against which are petty offences and does not involve in 'moral turpitude' and, therefore, the Court below has acquitted him from two criminal cases on the basis of compromise and in one case he has been acquitted honorably. 12. That, inspite of order of this acquittal as no appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner, therefore, he approached to this Court by filing W.P. No.13811/2013. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 12/03/2014 with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation by passing a detailed and speaking order, within a period of three months. That, as the order passed by this Court was not complied with, therefore, Contempt Petition No.445/2016 was field. During pendency of this contempt petition, the respondents have passed an order dated 3/09/2014 thereby rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for his appointment on the post of Police Constable (GD). As the order has been passed, therefore, the contempt petition was disposed of with liberty to challenge the order dated 3/09/2014 by filing a fresh petition. Therefore, he again filed W.P. No.4141/2017 challenging the order dated 3/09/2014. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 7/09/2018. The respondents, thereafter, considered the candidature of the petitioner and vide order dated 2/02/2019 rejected the claim of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 13. That, this Court while disposing of the earlier petition has directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh(supra). That in the case of Avtar Singh(supra), the Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines for considering the case of the candidates against whom criminal case is pending or who has been acquitted by the criminal court. That in the case of Avtar Singh(supra), the Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines for considering the case of the candidates against whom criminal case is pending or who has been acquitted by the criminal court. In Clause 38.4.3, the Apex Court has held that if acquittal has already been recorded in the case involving moral turpitude or offence of a heinous nature on a technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal or the benefit of reasonable doubt has been given the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to the incident and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. 14. In the present case, the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Parvez Khan, (2015) 2 SCC 591 and has held that if the candidate is acquitted on the basis of compromise then he is not fit for appointment on the post. In the present case also, from perusal of the record it reveals that the petitioner has been acquitted in a criminal case on the basis of compromise. Mere acquittal for want of evidence or discharge on account of compromise could not be taken for conclusion for suitability of candidature. The Apex Court has further held that a person who sought appointment in the Government service of Police Department then that person should have a clean record with highest moral character. In the judgment relied on the by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Nilesh Jat Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., passed by this Court in the W.P. No.16780/2017 the same is not helpful to the petitioner as in that case, the petitioner was not honorably acquitted. 15. In the light of the aforesaid, I do not find any reason to interfere into the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as devoid of any merits.