THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.17368 of 2021
ORDER:
Petitioner is aggrieved of the Memorandum, dated 17.12.2020 cancelling his provisional selection to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (Civil).
2. I have heard the submissions of Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.V.Rama Rao, learned Special Government Pleader for Home appearing for Respondents and perused the record.
3. Petitioner has applied for the post of SCT Police Constable (Civil) in response to the notification, dated 31.05.2018 and was provisionally selected for the said post. When his provisional selection was cancelled by order, dated 07.09.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.19711 of 2020, which was disposed of by this Court on 09.11.2020 setting aside the said cancellation order with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner afresh by following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India 1. Thereafter, the impugned order, dated 17.12.2020 is passed again cancelling the provisional selection of petitioner on the ground of 1 2016(8) SCC 471 2 JS, J W.P.No.17368 of 2021 pendency of criminal cases against him. Case of the petitioner is that he has disclosed about the pendency of criminal cases against him in the attestation form and was acquitted from the said cases on 29.11.2011. Petitioner has also contended that he was a juvenile at the time of registration of those crimes and was aged 17 years 9 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 is 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).
4. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent / Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board, admitting the provisional selection of petitioner to the post of SCT Police Constable (Civil). In the counter affidavit it is stated that petitioner was charged with the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 454 of IPC on the allegation that he committed theft of Laptops and mobile phones, 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 3 JS, J W.P.No.17368 of 2021 hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. The 2nd respondent contended that since the acquittal of petitioner 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. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. The admitted case of the parties is that the petitioner has appeared to the post of SCT Police Constable (Civil) and was provisionally selected. However, his provisional selection was cancelled through impugned order on the ground that he was involved in the criminal cases of moral turpitude. The contention of petitioner 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.
4 JS, J
W.P.No.17368 of 2021
6. Coming to the other aspect of moral turpitude, the respondents contend that the offences under Sections 380 and 454 of IPC levelled against the petitioner relate to moral turpitude. Since the petitioner was charged with the offences of theft, he is not eligible for appointment into the disciplined police force. It is further contended by the respondents that the acquittal of petitioner from the criminal cases was due to the panch witnesses turning hostile before the criminal Court. Such acquittal cannot be termed as 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 the employment, that too, in disciplined forces. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment in Police force, as he was charged with the offences of 380 and 454 of IPC involving moral turpitude and his acquittal was also not a clean acquittal but was the result of the panch witnesses turning hostile.
2
(2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1
5 JS, J
W.P.No.17368 of 2021
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date:19.10.2023 Ksk