THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.24372 of 2019
ORDER:
Petitioner is aggrieved of the Memo, dated 29.06.2019 cancelling his provisional selection to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (TSSP).
2. I have heard the submissions of Sri K.Lakshmi Manohar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Learned Special Government Pleader for Home appearing for Respondents and perused the record.
3. Pursuant to the notification, dated 31.12.2015, petitioner has applied for the post of SCT Police Constable (TSSP) and was provisionally selected for the said post. While so, an order dated 30.08.2017 was issued cancelling his provisional selection to the said post in view of pendency of criminal case against him. Case of the petitioner is that he was falsely implicated in a criminal case registered for the offences under Sections 363 and 376(1) of IPC and Section 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act and he was tried in S.C.No.2 of 2017 before the Court of Special Judge for trial of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal and that he had not mentioned the details of the said case at the time of applying for the post. It is stated that by the date of receipt of the above order, the trial in the criminal case was 2 JS, J W.P.No.24372 of 2019 concluded and the petitioner intimated the same to respondent No.2 on 27.04.2017 with a request to permit him to join in the training as he was acquitted in the above said criminal case. Inspite of the same, the 2nd respondent has issued impugned order, dated 30.08.2017 cancelling his provisional selection. Grievance of the petitioner is that since he was acquitted in the criminal case, he is entitled to be appointed to the post of SCT Police Constable (TSSP). Hence, the writ petition.
4. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent / Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board, wherein, the provisional selection of the petitioner to the post of SCT Police Constable (TSSP) is admitted. It is stated in the counter that as per Rule 3 (G) (vi) of TS (SCT) Rules 1999, a person involved in an offence involving moral turpitude is liable for disqualification and cannot be appointed. Since the petitioner was involved in criminal case for the offences under Sections 363 and 376(1) of IPC and Section 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, his provisional selection was cancelled. It is stated that a perusal of the judgment in S.C.No.2 of 2017 shows that the petitioner had forcibly committed rape on victim girl. However, in view of settlement out of Court, the material witnesses turned hostile and the petitioner was acquitted. Therefore, the acquittal of petitioner cannot be termed as a clean acquittal. In 3 JS, J W.P.No.24372 of 2019 the counter affidavit, a reference was made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehar Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi 1 and extracted the following paragraph from the said judgment:
"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".
5. In the counter affidavit, a reference was also made to another judgment in State of Mandhya Pradesh and others Vs. Parvez Khan 2, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declined to interfere with the refusal of the competent authority to recruit the respondent on the ground of criminal antecedents. They further referred to another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India 3, wherein, it is held that if acquittal has been recorded in a case of moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal or 1 (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 685 2 Civil Appeal No.10613 of 2014 3 2016(8) SCC 471 4 JS, J W.P.No.24372 of 2019 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 employer. Accordingly, the respondents prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
6. The admitted case of the parties is that the petitioner has appeared for selection to the post of SCT Police Constable (TSSP) and was provisionally selected. However, his provisional selection was cancelled through the impugned order on the ground of his involvement in the criminal case of moral turpitude. The case of the petitioner is that after his acquittal from the said case, he approached the 2nd respondent requesting to appoint him to the said post and inspite of the same, the impugned order is passed cancelling his provisional selection. The respondents on the other hand contended that though the petitioner is acquitted by the Court, such acquittal is not a clean acquittal but was the result of the material witnesses turning hostile due to compromise during the course of trial. As the charges levelled against the petitioner are all of grave nature and the acquittal is not a clean acquittal, they have issued the impugned order cancelling the provisional selection of petitioner as per rules.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of this Court in W.P.No.40717 of 2017 and batch, dated 08.03.2019.
5 JS, J
W.P.No.24372 of 2019
The said case relates to suppression of the factum of registration of criminal case against the petitioners therein. Under such circumstances, this Court, by following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case (3 supra), directed the respondents to re-consider the cases of petitioners therein.
8. The said judgment is not applicable for the facts of the present case, as in the present case, rather than suppression of fact, the petitioner's provisional selection was cancelled in view of his involvement in a case of moral turpitude.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Methu Meda 4, 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.
10. In another judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents in the case of State of Mandhya Pradesh and others Vs. Bunty 5, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in case of acquittal based on benefit of doubt or for any other technical reason, 4 (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1 5 (2020) 17 Supreme Court Cases 654 6 JS, J W.P.No.24372 of 2019 employer can take into consideration all relevant facts to take appropriate action as to fitness of incumbent for appointment/continuance in service.
11. The above two judgments relied on by the learned counsel for respondents are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case also, the petitioner was charged with grave offences involving moral turpitude, but however he was acquitted of the said offences in view of compromising the matter with the victim. Such acquittal cannot be termed to be a clean acquittal so as to entitle the petitioner to seek appointment in a disciplined force like Police. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date:20.09.2023 Ksk