THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION Nos.1663 AND 1719 of 2021
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue involved in these two writ petitions is same,
they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
2. I have heard the submissions of Sri Ramesh Chilla, Learned
Counsel for the petitioners, learned Special Government Pleader,
appearing for Respondents and perused the record.
3. Petitioners in these writ petitions are aggrieved of the action of respondents in cancelling their provisional selection to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (Civil) and (AR) respectively.
4. Petitioners have applied for the post of SCT Police Constable (Civil) and (A.R.) in response to the notification, dated 31.05.2018 and were provisionally selected for the said posts. When their provisional selection was cancelled by orders, dated 23.12.2020 and 28.12.2020, the petitioners have filed W.P.Nos.20210 and 19662 of 2020, which were disposed of by this Court on 06.11.2020 and 16.11.2020 setting aside the said cancellation orders with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the cases of the petitioners afresh by following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2 JS, J W.P.No.1663&1719 of 2021 Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India 1. Thereafter, the impugned orders, dated 23.12.2020 and 28.12.2020 are passed again cancelling the provisional selection of petitioners on the ground of pendency of criminal cases against them. Case of the petitioner in W.P.No.1663 of 2021 is that he has disclosed about the pendency of criminal case against him in the attestation form and subsequently, action against him was dropped as the complainant was not intended to proceed with the case as she had no grievance against the petitioner. Case of the petitioner in W.P.No.1719 of 2021 is that he has also disclosed about the pendency of criminal cases against him in which, he was acquitted. Petitioner in W.P.No.1719 of 2021 has also contended that he was a juvenile at the time of registration of those crimes and was aged 17 years 2 months and inspite of the same, he was not tried as a juvenile, however, was acquitted by the criminal Court. Hence, his case is that considering his acquittal from the criminal cases and also considering that he was a juvenile at the time of those crimes, he is entitled for appointment as SCT Police Constable (Civil).
5. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent / Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board, admitting the provisional selection of petitioners to the posts of SCT Police Constable (Civil) and (AR). In the counter affidavit, it is stated that 1 2016(8) SCC 471 3 JS, J W.P.No.1663&1719 of 2021 the petitioner in W.P.No.1663 of 2021 was charged with the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 376 (I) of IPC and the petitioner had given an impression that he married the victim girl and they were leading marital life, but as per the report of the Superintendent of Police, Nagarkurnool District, the petitioner and the victim were living separately and the victim was married to another person and that the petitioner had cheated the victim.
6. Petitioner in W.P.No.1719 of 2021 was charged with the offences punishable under Sections 379 of IPC and under Section 110(E) of Cr.P.C. on the allegation that he committed theft of two- wheelers, which were seized by the police during the course of investigation. It is stated that though the petitioner is claiming that he was to be tried under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, the competent criminal Court had tried him for the above offences in accordance with law, however, he was acquitted of the said charges as the panch witnesses for confession and seizure have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. The 2nd respondent contended that since the acquittal of petitioner in W.P.No.1719 of 2021 was not a clean acquittal and as the cases registered against him involve moral turpitude, as per Rule - 3 (G)
(vi) of the SCT Rules, he is not eligible for appointment to the post of SCT Police Constable (Civil), which is a disciplined force.
4 JS, J
W.P.No.1663&1719 of 2021
7. The admitted case of the parties is that the petitioners have appeared to the posts of SCT Police Constable (Civil) and (AR) and were provisionally selected. However, their provisional selection was cancelled through impugned orders on the ground that they were involved in the criminal cases of moral turpitude. The contention of petitioner in W.P.No.1719 of 2021 is that since he was a juvenile at the time of registration of the crimes against him, his case can be considered for appointment. The said contention of petitioner cannot be accepted at this stage, as he has not objected for his trial before the regular criminal Court and kept quiet all the way and waited till conclusion of criminal proceedings against him. Once the trial has been conducted by the criminal Court and completed the proceedings, it is not open for the petitioner to take the plea at this stage that he was a juvenile at relevant point of time. Therefore, this Court is not going into the said aspect, in the writ proceedings.
8. Coming to the other aspect of moral turpitude, the respondents contend that the offences under Sections 417 and 376(1) of IPC levelled against the petitioner in W.P.No.1663 of 2021 and the offences under Sections 379 of IPC and under Section 110(E) of Cr.P.C. levelled against the petitioner in W.P.No.1719 of 2021 relate to moral turpitude. Since the petitioners were charged with the offences of theft and rape, they are not eligible for appointment into 5 JS, J W.P.No.1663&1719 of 2021 the disciplined police force. It is further contended by the respondents that the acquittal of petitioner in W.P.No.1719 of 2021 from the criminal cases was due to the panch witnesses turning hostile before the criminal Court. Such acquittal cannot be termed as a clean acquittal so as to entitle the petitioner for appointment. In this connection, a reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Methu Meda 2, wherein, it is held that if a person is acquitted by extending 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 employment, that too, in disciplined forces. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment, the petitioners are not entitled for appointment in Police force, as they were charged with the offences of 417 and 376(1) of IPC in one case and under Sections 379 of IPC and Section 110(E) of Cr.P.C. in the other case, both involving moral turpitude and the acquittal of petitioner in W.P.No.1719 of 2021 was not a clean acquittal but was the result of the panch witnesses turning hostile and the action against the petitioner in W.P.No.1663 of 2021 was dropped as he married the victim girl only for the purpose of getting job thereafter they are living separately. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief.
2
(2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1
6 JS, J
W.P.No.1663&1719 of 2021
9. For the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date:10.11.2023 Ksk