Bommagani Dhanujay vs The State Of Telangana

Telangana High Court

Bommagani Dhanujay vs The State Of Telangana on 21 December, 2023

      THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI


                  WRIT PETITION NO.25870 OF 2022

                               ORDER

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.166/R&T/Admn.4/2017-18 dt.21.02.2018 but communicated in the month of October, 2018 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for his reinstatement into service and appointment as SCT PC (TSSP) 3rd Battalion, TSSP (IR), Ranga Reddy District on the ground of his involvement in Crime No.25/2014 of Nakrekal Police Station, Nalgonda District in spite of honourable acquittal in Sessions Case No.75 of 2014 dt.19.10.2015, as illegal and arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to declare that the petitioner is entitled for the appointment as SCT PC (TSSP) 3rd Battalion TSSP (IR), Ranga Reddy District with all consequential benefits and seniority on par with his batch-mates and to pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner was selected for the post of SCT PC pursuant to the recruitment notification dt.31.12.2015. At the time of verification of certificates and antecedents, it was found that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case in Crime No.25/2014 of Nakrekal Police Station of Nalgonda District for the offence punishable under Section 354D read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act. Subsequently, the said case was converted into a Sessions Case, i.e., S.C.No.75 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda and the said Court acquitted the petitioner vide judgment dt.19.11.2015. The petitioner brought all these facts to the notice of the recruitment authority and requested for issuance of posting order. However, there was a show-cause notice dt.06.04.2017 for cancellation of the petitioner's provisional selection. On 15.04.2017, the petitioner submitted his reply stating that the complainant has not recognized the petitioner/accused in the Court and even the mother of the complainant and the sister did not recognize the accused and therefore, the entire case was treated as a case not based on any evidence and accordingly the petitioner was honourably acquitted of the offences. However, the petitioner's provisional selection was cancelled by orders dt.03.07.2017, W.P.No.25870 of 2022 3 against which the petitioner filed W.P.No.28505 of 2017. This Court, vide orders dt.06.12.2017, set aside the same directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner keeping in view of the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India 1. Thereafter, the impugned orders were passed on 21.02.2018, communicated in the month of October, 2018, reiterating their earlier stand for not giving appointment orders on the ground that the petitioner was involved in an offence of moral turpitude. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above submissions made in the writ affidavit and has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Sessions Court, wherein the petitioner herein has been honourably acquitted. A copy of the order of the Sessions Court dt.19.10.2015 in S.C.No.75 of 2014 is placed in the writ papers. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.1 and the allegation against him was that he was harassing the victim girl on the pretext of love and the remaining accused used to follow her and insisted her to accept the love of Accused No.1 and further while she was going to the college, all the accused used to harass her on the same ground and that 1 (2016) 8 SCC 471 W.P.No.25870 of 2022 4 on one day when she was waiting at the Main Centre, Nakrekal for bus having purchased note books, all the accused once again came to her on their bikes and tortured her on the pretext of love and further threatened her with dire consequences if she did not accept the love of Accused No.1 and therefore, the victim/complainant lodged a complaint with police with a request to take action against Accused Nos.1 to 4.

4. From the material on record, it is noticed that the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and P.W.1 is the victim girl and none of these witnesses identified the accused and did not state anything against the accused, leave alone Accused No.1. P.W.5 who was the mediator and who was allegedly present at the scene of offence also did not support the case of the prosecution and denied his presence at the time of observation of the scene of offence and P.Ws.6 and 7 who are Investigation Officers relied upon the allegations in the charge sheet. After considering of all these facts, the lower Court has observed thus:

"14. On careful scrutiny of the whole evidence on record, no witness stated anything against the accused persons. Therefore in the absence of any reliable evidence, basing on the evidence of the Investigation Officer, it is not safe to conclude that the accused No.1 to 4 are committed the offence, as alleged by the prosecution and as W.P.No.25870 of 2022 5 such, the accused No.1 to 4 are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, point is answered.

15. In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence under Sec.354-A IPC and Sec.12 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and accordingly, A-1 to A-4 are acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., of the said charges. Bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled."

Therefore, it appears to be a case of clear acquittal on the ground that there was no evidence against the petitioner herein/Accused No.1 and it is not on the basis of any case of any benefit of doubt given to the accused.

5. Learned Special Government Pleader, however, relied upon the stand taken by the Department in the impugned order and submitted that since the petitioner was not acquitted of the charges with clear acquittal on merits, the petitioner could not be considered for recruitment to the police service which is a disciplined force and he has to be of impeccable character and integrity. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Bunty 2. 2 (2020) 17 SCC 654 W.P.No.25870 of 2022 6

6. In the case of Gugulothu Nagu Vs. The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department 3, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has considered several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India including the decision in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India (1 supra) and also referred to the phrase "Honourable acquittal" and also the definition of "Moral turpitude" and has held as under:

"8. The phrase "Honourable acquittal" is unknown to criminal law. However, in service law jurisprudence there has been a consistent approach by the Constitutional Courts in recognizing the concept of 10 "Honourable acquittal". It would be difficult to lay down criteria as to what would constitute an "Honourable acquittal"

or "Clean acquittal". Under criminal law, "Acquittal" means that the charge against the accused is not proved. There may be varying situations like acquittal recorded by giving benefit of doubt to the accused; acquittal recorded for lack of evidence or failure to prove charges against the accused; there may be situations where prosecution may not adduce evidence of crucial witnesses; some of the crucial witnesses may have died; there may be negligence on part of the prosecution in the investigation and production of crucial witnesses before the court. In the backdrop of the given illustrations it would be difficult to exhaustively lay down parameters as to what would constitute "Honorable acquittal". The Court has to go by the fact situation existing in each case. The Supreme Court while dealing 3 W.P.No.2106 of 2021 dt.25.10.2021 W.P.No.25870 of 2022 7 with the concept of "Honorable acquittal" in DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE v. S. SAMUTHIRAM 4 , held as under:

"24. The meaning of the expression 'honourable acquittal' came up for consideration before this Court in Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal [(1994) 1 SCC 541]. In that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The expressions 'honourable acquittal', 'acquitted of blame', 'fully exonerated' are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression 'honourably acquitted'. When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.

25. In R.P. Kapoor v. Union of India [AIR 1964 SC 787], it was held even in the case of acquittal, departmental proceedings may follow where the acquittal is other than honourable. In State of Assam and another v. Raghava Rajgopalachari [1972 SLR 44 (SC)], this Court quoted with approval the views expressed by Lord Williams, J. in Robert Stuart Wauchope V. Emperor [ILR (1934) 61 Cal. 168] which is as follows:

"8. ... The expression "honourably acquitted" is one which is unknown to court of justice. Apparently it is a form of order used in courts martial and other extra judicial tribunals. We said in our judgment that we accepted the explanation given by the appellant believed it to be true and considered that it ought to have been accepted by the Government authorities and by 4 (2013) 1 SCC 598 W.P.No.25870 of 2022 8 the magistrate. Further, we decided that the appellant had not misappropriated the monies referred to in the charge. It is thus clear that the effect of our judgment was that the appellant was acquitted as fully and completely as it was possible for him to be acquitted. Presumably, this is equivalent to what Government authorities term 'honourably acquitted'."

26. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision in the service rule for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably acquitted by a Criminal Court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason is that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases where a person is acquitted for technical reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other witnesses turned hostile etc. In the case on hand the prosecution did not take steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses on the ground that the complainant and his wife turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. We are not prepared to say in the 12 instant case, the respondent was honourably acquitted by the criminal court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not provide so."

"11. Moral turpitude is defined as "An act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man." The involvement of the petitioner in an offence of 'moral turpitude' would W.P.No.25870 of 2022 9 arise for consideration if there is a conviction recorded against him. But once there is an acquittal of the accused and more so acquittal is held to be on merits and not on technical grounds, the issue of 'moral turpitude' becomes redundant. The principle of law laid down in MEHAR SINGH's case (1 supra) and BUNTY's case (3 supra), on which reliance is placed by the learned Special Government Pleader for Home, is not applicable to the facts of the instant case since it is held that the acquittal of the petitioner was not on technical grounds or benefit of doubt."

For coming to this conclusion, another judgment of this Court in W.P.No.28458 of 2017 and batch dt.06.12.2017 was also considered.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Methu Meda 5, wherein the law in respect of the expressions "honourable acquittal", "acquittal of blame"

and "fully acquitted" has been considered and it was held as under:

"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. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking decisions 5 (2022) 1 SCC 1 W.P.No.25870 of 2022 10 in these matters to the Screening Committee and the decision of the Committee would be final unless mala fide. In Pradeep Kumar [State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Pradeep Kumar, (2018) 1 SCC 797 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 504 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] , this Court has taken the same view, as reiterated in Mehar Singh [State v. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 669 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 910] . The same view has again been reiterated by this Court in Raj Kumar [State v. Raj Kumar, (2021) 8 SCC 347 : (2021) 2 SCC (L&S) 745] .

"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 offence 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 offences alleged and the result of the trial is not sufficient. 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."

8. Having regard to the above precedents, it is clear that it is for the petitioner who has to give all the necessary information and it is for the appointing authority which has to take a conscious decision about the desirability or otherwise of employing such an employee/person having regard to the relevant facts available as to the antecedents. However, where there are facts available on record creating doubt about the integrity of a person, then it is a fit case for rejection. However, in this case, it is a case where the complaint is that some boys were harassing the victim/de facto complainant in the name of love, but when it came to identifying the accused, there was no identification either by the victim complainant or by her relatives or by the mediator. What is clear acquittal or honourable acquittal has already been brought out in various cases which have also been reproduced hereinabove.

9. In view of the same, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner was honourably acquitted from the charges and the recruitment authority ought to have considered the same and ought to have issued appointment letter to the petitioner since the petitioner was acquitted of the charges even before issuance of the recruitment notification. Therefore, respondent No.1 is directed to issue the appointment letter to W.P.No.25870 of 2022 12 the petitioner with all consequential benefits and send him for training along with the next batch being sent for training.

10. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

11. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 21.12.2023 Svv