Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 168 (MP)

Vinod Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2021-02-17

VISHAL MISHRA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Vishal Mishra, J. 1. With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 16.01.2017 passed by the respondents whereby, the representation submitted by the petitioner in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in earlier round of litigation in W.P. No. 7224/2015 decided on 02.11.2016 has been rejected without considering the direction issued by this Court, wherein, it was directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Platoon Commander, after taking into consideration of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. delivered in SLP (c) No. 20525/2011 dated 21.07.2016. 3. It is submitted that petitioner was duly selected on the post of Sub Inspector. On earlier occasion, case of the petitioner was refused to be considered for appointment owing to the character verification, but the same was put to challenge by the petitioner by filing a writ petition alleging therein that although the petitioner was found involved in a criminal case bearing Crime No. 125/2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 294, 506 and 325 of IPC and he has been acquitted from the aforesaid criminal case on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties. 4. He submits that there is no consideration of the petitioner's case by the authorities and there was no application of mind, therefore, this Court vide order dated 02.11.2016 has quashed the impugned order dated 13.08.2015 and the respondents were directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of 'Platoon Commander', considering the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (Supra). Thereafter, the authorities have again re-considered the case of the petitioner and have rejected the same again observing that the petitioner has not been honorably acquitted and the candidate having a criminal background is not a fit person to get appointed in the disciplined police force. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Vs. Mehar Singh, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685 and further in the case of Parvez Khan Vs. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Vs. Mehar Singh, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685 and further in the case of Parvez Khan Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2015 (2) SCC 591 and has rejected the claim. It is argued that the offences which were registered against the petitioner are simple in nature and the circular issued by the State Government to the aforesaid effect that even for the offence related to Section 354 and 325 of IPC do not include in moral turpitude. Thus, offence under Sections 148 and 149 of IPC being simple in nature could not have been considered the ground for rejection of the case of the petitioner. The order impugned is per se illegal and without application of mind. 5. It is further pointed out that the provision of Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that the acquittal which is based on compromise is acquittal for all the purposes. Thus, the contention of the respondents that he has been acquitted on the basis of compromise is of no help to the respondents. 6. It is argued that despite of the specific directions of this Court in the earlier round of litigation, the authorities have totally failed to appreciate the case of the petitioner in totality and without application of mind has passed the impugned order which is clearly unsustainable in facts and circumstances of the case. He has relied upon the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 7/20 (Rohit Singh Raghuwanshi Vs. State of M.P. and ors.) decided in 02.03.2020, wherein, in similar circumstances, the directions were issued to the authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner and the appointment was extended to the candidate. Petitioner's case is exactly identical to the case of the appellant in W.A. No. 7/2020. In such circumstances, the order impugned is unsustainable and he has prayed for quashment of the impugned order. 7. Per contra, counsel for the State has supported the impugned order and has contended that the impugned order is just and proper and has been passed after full application of mind and following the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi (Supra) and Parvez Khan (Supra). 7. Per contra, counsel for the State has supported the impugned order and has contended that the impugned order is just and proper and has been passed after full application of mind and following the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi (Supra) and Parvez Khan (Supra). It is contended that the petitioner was selected for the post of Platoon Commander, but he was facing the criminal proceedings registered at criminal case bearing Crime No. 125/2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 294, 506 and 325 of IPC, wherein the petitioner was exonerated from the charges on the basis of the compromise. The guidelines have been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (Supra), wherein, para 38.8 of the judgment has specifically laid down all guidelines which are required to be followed by the respondents while considering the case of an employee like petitioner. It is argued that the aforesaid guidelines clearly provides that the police personnel performs the sensitive nature of duties, hence, the conduct of the candidate has to be beyond any suspicion on doubt and the police personnel's are obliged to protect law and order, must possess integrity and it is also the prerogative of the employer to decide whether a person with criminal history should be granted appointment or not. Mere acquittal in a criminal case on the basis of compromise does not amount to honorable acquittal. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the acquittal of the petitioner is honorable. The employer cannot be compelled to grant appointment even after the acquittal of the candidate in a criminal case. They are having a right to consider the candidature and if the employee is having a criminal history, then they are having the right to refuse the appointment. 8. In pursuance of the order passed in W.P. in earlier round of litigation, the case of the petitioner was duly considered by the authorities and the same has been rejected by the impugned order. 8. In pursuance of the order passed in W.P. in earlier round of litigation, the case of the petitioner was duly considered by the authorities and the same has been rejected by the impugned order. It is mentioned in the impugned order that Screening Committee on 17.07.2015 has considered the case of the petitioner and were not satisfied with the case of the petitioner and has declared unfit for appointment and the order has been passed after consideration of guidelines in the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (Supra). In such circumstances, no illegality has been committed by the authorities in passing the order impugned. He has prayed for dismissal of the petition. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. From perusal of the record it is seen that the petitioner has duly been selected for the post of 'Platoon Commander' and at the time of character verification, it was found that the petitioner was having a criminal case registered against him for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 294, 506 and 325 of IPC at Crime No. 125/2006 and in the aforesaid case, the petitioner has been acquitted on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. On earlier occasion, the petitioner's case was rejected on the basis of the fact that he has been acquitted on the basis of compromise and the acquittal on the basis of compromise cannot be considered as an honorable acquittal. It is pointed out that in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court in earlier round of litigation in W.P. No. 7224/2015, the case of the petitioner was considered by the authorities in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (Supra) and the case of the petitioner has been rejected. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Avtar Singh (Supra) in para 38.8 has held as under:- "38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime." 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehar Singh (supra) has held as under:- "35. The police force is a disciplined force. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehar Singh (supra) has held as under:- "35. The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the society. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged in the criminal case, that acquittal or discharge order will have to be examined to see whether he has been completely exonerated in the case because even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide." 13. From the analysis of the aforesaid dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is clear that the employer is having the domain to grant appointment to a particular person and even in cases of acquittal the employer cannot be compelled to grant employment in a disciplined force like the police force. From the perusal of the impugned order it is seen that the petitioner's case was taken up by the Scrutiny Committee and the same was scrutinized and a finding has been recorded to the effect that mere acquittal of the petitioner on the basis of compromise does not amount to clean acquittal or honorable acquittal. In such circumstances, the petitioner was acquitted. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehar Singh (supra) in para 23 has considered the aforesaid aspect and has categorically held that:- "23. A careful perusal of the policy leads us to conclude that the Screening Committee would be entitled to keep persons involved in grave cases of moral turpitude out of the police force even if they are acquitted or discharged if it feels that the acquittal or discharge is on technical grounds or not honourable. A careful perusal of the policy leads us to conclude that the Screening Committee would be entitled to keep persons involved in grave cases of moral turpitude out of the police force even if they are acquitted or discharged if it feels that the acquittal or discharge is on technical grounds or not honourable. The Screening Committee will be within its rights to cancel the candidature of a candidate if it finds that the acquittal is based on some serious flaw in the conduct of the prosecution case or is the result of material witnesses turning hostile. It is only experienced officers of the Screening Committee who will be able to judge whether the acquitted or discharged candidate is likely to revert to similar activities in future with more strength and vigour, if appointed, to the post in a police force. The Screening Committee will have to consider the nature and extent of such persons involvement in the crime and his propensity of becoming a cause for worsening the law and order situation rather than maintaining it. In our opinion, this policy framed by the Delhi Police does not merit any interference from this Court as its object appears to be to ensure that only persons with impeccable character enter the police force." 15. Thus, it is clear that even in the case of acquittal, the employer is having the power to consider the cases of employees and he cannot be compelled to grant appointments even if the candidate is acquitted. It is the domain of the employer which cannot be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The case law relied upon is factually on different footings, therefore, the same is also of no help to the petitioner. In such circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. The impugned order has rightly been passed. The same does not call for any interference in the present writ petition. Petition sans merits and is accordingly dismissed.