Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 27 (MP)

Anil Prasad Choudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2024-01-05

RAVI MALIMATH, VISHAL MISHRA

body2024
ORDER 1. Assailing the order dated 28.8.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing Writ Petition No.10057 of 2019, the writ petitioner is in appeal. 2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he applied for the post of Police Constable and after facing the recruitment process, he was declared a successful candidate. He was allotted posting at Unit Narsinghpur. The petitioner submitted all the relevant documents and also made a declaration about his acquittal in a criminal case and submitted an affidavit to the aforesaid effect. He appeared before the scrutiny committee. Therefore, vide order dated 20.10.2018, he was informed that he was found ineligible for appointment. The said order was questioned by the petitioner by filing a Writ Petition being W.P. No.28492 of 2018 which was disposed off vide order dated 29.1.2019 directing respondent No.4 to decide fresh representation of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra and others passed in Civil Appeal No.10571 of 2018. The petitioner was again asked to appear before the scrutiny committee and thereafter he was again declared ineligible vide order dated 4.4.2019. 3. It is his further case that the authorities have adopted different yardsticks and discriminated the case of the petitioner as the persons who were chargesheeted for serious offences have been granted appointment. It is his case that he was charge-sheeted for the offence under section 327 of the IPC in which he has been acquitted on merits and not on the basis of compromise. Thereafter, in all fairness, the authorities should have considered the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post in question. The writ Court has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the case and has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the employer is having every right to look into the antecedents of a candidate and it is within his discretion to grant appointment or not, and in terms of the judgment rendered in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 , the employer cannot be compelled to grant appointment. 4. It is argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases has considered the aforesaid proposition. Reliance is placed upon the judgments rendered in Mohd. 4. It is argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases has considered the aforesaid proposition. Reliance is placed upon the judgments rendered in Mohd. Imran v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2019) 17 SCC 696, Pramod Singh Kirar v. State of M.P. reported in (2023) 1 SCC 423 , Vashist Narayan Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2 and State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1070. 5. Per contra, State counsel has vehemently opposed the contentions and supported the impugned order. It is contended that the learned writ Court has not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition. In the earlier round of litigation, only direction is to reconsider the case of the petitioner. The authorities have reconsidered the case of the petitioner and passed the impugned order dated 4.4.2019 finding him unfit for the post in question. It is within the domain of the employer to adjudge the eligibility of a candidate. It is contended that the petitioner has applied for recruitment on the post of Constable in the Police Department which is a disciplined force. The parameters for consideration are entirely different. Mere acquittal in a criminal case cannot be a ground for grant of appointment, rather it is required to be examined whether he has been completely exonerated in the case or benefit of doubt has been extended to him. It is for the scrutiny committee to take a final decision in the matter and the decision of the scrutiny committee can only be interfered with in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of mala fides. No such plea is taken by the petitioner. Reliance is placed upon the decision in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), wherein it is held that in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. The learned writ Court has considered all these aspects of the matter. She has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 7. The learned writ Court has considered all these aspects of the matter. She has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 7. The admitted facts are that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case registered as Crime No.646 of 2014 at Police Station Ranjhi District Jabalpur for the offences under sections 294, 323, 324, 327, 506B read with 34 of the IPC. After trial, he was acquitted vide judgment dated 21.11.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur. And, in pursuance to the recruitment process initiated for the post of Police Constable, the petitioner applied for the same and he was declared as successful candidate but at the time of character verification, it was found that a criminal case was registered against him, therefore, the screening committee vide order dated 20.10.2018 declared him ineligible for the post in question. It is a settled proposition of law that the employer has every right and discretion to consider the case of the employee for appointment. The employer cannot be compelled to grant appointment to the post in question, even if the candidate has been acquitted in a criminal case. The aforesaid aspect has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) wherein it is categorically held that the employer cannot be compelled to appoint a particular person even after his acquittal. It is the sole discretion of the employer to consider or not to consider the candidature of an employee. The aforesaid analogy is fully applicable in the present case. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Union of India v. Methu Meda reported in (2022) 1 SCC 1 has elaborately dealt with the aforesaid proposition and placing reliance upon the judgment rendered in Avtar Singh (supra), as well as in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v. Mehar Singh reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685 has held as under :-- 16. The law with regard to the ef ect and consequence of the acquittal, concealment of criminal case on appointments, etc. has been settled in Avtar Singh, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court decided, as thus : 38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus : 38.1. has been settled in Avtar Singh, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court decided, as thus : 38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus : 38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. 38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. 38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. 38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted : 38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty of ence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse. 38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. 38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or of ence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. 38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. 38.6. 38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. 38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case. 38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper. 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. 38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form. 38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for. 38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him. (Emphasis in original)” 17. In view of the above, in the facts of the present case, as per paras 38.3, 38.4.3 and 38.5 of Avtar Singh case, it is clear that the employer is having right to consider the suitability of the candidate as per government orders/instructions/rules at the time of taking the decision for induction of the candidate in employment. In view of the above, in the facts of the present case, as per paras 38.3, 38.4.3 and 38.5 of Avtar Singh case, it is clear that the employer is having right to consider the suitability of the candidate as per government orders/instructions/rules at the time of taking the decision for induction of the candidate in employment. Acquittal on technical ground in respect of the of ences of heinous/serious nature, which is not a clean acquittal, the employer may have a right to consider all relevant facts available as to the antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. Even in case, truthful declaration regarding concluded trial has been made by the employee, still the employer has the right to consider antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. 18. If we look into the facts of the present case, the instructions of the Home Department dated 1.2.2012, prevalent at the time of selection and appointment specify that such candidate would not be considered for recruitment. In Circular No. 2/2010 dated 31.3.2010, issued by the Of ice of the Training Sector, National Industrial Security Academy, Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home Af airs), it is clarified that if a candidate is found involved in any criminal case, whether it is finalised or pending, the candidate may not be allowed to join without further instructions from the headquarters. After seeking instructions from the headquarters, the Standing Committee has taken the decision on 15.10.2012 that because of acquittal giving benefit of doubt, the respondent-writ petitioner was not considered eligible for appointment in CISF. 19. In the aforesaid fact, guidance can further be taken from the judgment in State v. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685 , in paras 23, 34 & 35, this Court observed, as thus : “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 of icers 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 person's 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. 34. The respondents are trying to draw mileage from the fact that in their application and/or attestation form they have disclosed their involvement in a criminal case. We do not see how this fact improves their case. Disclosure of these facts in the application/attestation form is an essential requirement. An aspirant is expected to state these facts honestly. Honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of the police force. The respondents should not, therefore, expect to score any brownie points because of this disclosure. Besides, this has no relevance to the point in issue. It bears repetition to state that while deciding whether a person against whom a criminal case was registered and who was later on acquitted or discharged should be appointed to a post in the police force, what is relevant is the nature of the of ence, the extent of his involvement, whether the acquittal was a clean acquittal or an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt because the witnesses turned hostile or because of some serious flaw in the prosecution, and the propensity of such person to indulge in similar activities in future. This decision, in our opinion, can only be taken by the Screening Committee created for that purpose by the Delhi Police. If the Screening Committee's decision is not mala fide or actuated by extraneous considerations, then, it cannot be questioned. 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. In recent times, the image of the police force is tarnished. Instances of police personnel behaving in a wayward manner by misusing power are in public domain and are a matter of concern. The reputation of the police force has taken a beating. In such a situation, we would not like to dilute the importance and ef icacy of a mechanism like the Screening Committee created by the Delhi Police to ensure that persons who are likely to erode its credibility do not enter the police force. At the same time, the Screening Committee must be alive to the importance of trust reposed in it and must treat all candidates with even hand.” 20. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear the respondent who wishes to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude and have impeccable character and integrity. A person having a criminal antecedents would not be fit in this category. The employer is having right to consider the nature of acquittal or decide until he is completely exonerated because even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force. A person having a criminal antecedents would not be fit in this category. The employer is having right to consider the nature of acquittal or decide until he is completely exonerated 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 and the decision of the Committee would be final unless mala fide. In State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Pradeep Kumar, (2018) 1 SCC 797 , this Court has taken the same view, as reiterated in Mehar Singh. The same view has again been reiterated by this Court in State v. Raj Kumar, (2021) 8 SCC 347 . 21. As discussed hereinabove, the law is well-settled. If a person is acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt, from the charge of an of ence involving moral turpitude or because the witnesses turned hostile, it would not automatically entitle him for the employment, that too in disciplined force. The employer is having a right to consider his candidature in terms of the circulars issued by the Screening Committee. The mere disclosure of the of ences alleged and the result of the trial is not suf icient. In the said situation, the employer cannot be compelled to give appointment to the candidate. Both the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court have not considered the said legal position, as discussed above in the orders [Union of India v. Methu Meda, 2013 SCC OnLine MP 10701] , [Methu Meda v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 3897 of 2013, order dated 27-9-2013 (MP)] impugned. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Methu Meda v. Union of India [Methu Meda v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 3897 of 2013, order dated 27.9.2013 (MP)] and the Division Bench in Union of India v. Methu Meda [Union of India v. Methu Meda, 2013 SCC OnLine MP 10701] are not sustainable in law, as discussed hereinabove. 9. In Methu Meda's case (supra), the order disqualifying the petitioner was put to challenge by filing a writ petition before the High Court and the writ petition was allowed. 9. In Methu Meda's case (supra), the order disqualifying the petitioner was put to challenge by filing a writ petition before the High Court and the writ petition was allowed. The same was put to challenge by filing a writ appeal but it was dismissed which led to filing of SLP through the department. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has arrived at a conclusion that it is the sole discretion of the authorities and within the domain of the employer to consider the case of the candidate for grant of appointment on the post in question and the employer cannot be compelled under any circumstances to grant appointment to a particular candidate. The mere disclosure of the offences alleged and the result of the trial is not sufficient. The screening committee has to consider all the relevant factors including the extent of involvement, criminal antecedents, acquittal in a criminal case etc. The same could not have been questioned except on the ground of mala fides. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Methu Meda (supra), in paragraph 21 has considered the aforesaid aspect of the case. 10. The law with respect to consideration of the case of an employee after acquittal in a criminal case has been settled in Avtar Singh case (supra), which still holds the field. Under these circumstances, the learned writ Court has not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition. Hence, no relief can be extended to the appellant. 11. Consequently, the writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.