Telangana High Court
Gajula Thirupathi vs The State Of Telangana on 3 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.No. 20833 of 2021
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned Memo Rc.No.176/Tect./Admn.2/2020-21, dated 29.01.2021, issued by the respondent No.2 cancelling the provisional selection of the petitioner to the post of S.C.T.P.C.(TSSP) through Memo Rc.No.222/Rectt./Genl.1/2009, dated 17.08.2020, despite of his clear acquittal/compounded in CC.No.35 of 2020 in FIR No.190/2014, under Sections 417,420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC on the file of Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapalli by the Hon'ble Lokadalath/Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, to set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 & 21 of Indian Constitution and consequently to direct the respondents to send the petitioner to the basic training of SCTPCs by issuing appointment in pursuance of Recruitment notification Rc.No.88/Rect/Admn.2018, dated 31.05.2018 and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the respondent No.2 has issued a notification 2 TMD,J W.P.No. 20833 of 2021 Rc.No.88/Rect/Admn.2018, dated 31.05.2018 for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Training Police Constable (SCTPC). The petitioner was provisionally selected to the said post subject to verification of his antecedents and his medical fitness. In the attestation form, the petitioner had informed the respondent No.2 about the acquittal from a false criminal case registered against him vide FIR No.190/2014, dated 21.12.2014 of Police Station Dharmaram for the offences under Sections 417, 420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Subsequently, on 31.08.2015, the case was compounded in Lok Adalath held by the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli. This fact was also informed to the respondent No.2 through his application and S.B.Enquiry.
3. It is submitted that on 25.02.2020 the respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice calling for the explanation of the petitioner as to why his provisional selection to the post of SCTPC (TSSP) should not be cancelled as per rules as he was involved in a serious case of Moral Turpitude. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted his reply on 07.03.2020 stating that the case foisted against him was a false case and that he was acquitted by the Hon'ble Lok Adalath vide its award dated 31.08.2015 and that it is an honourable acquittal in the eye of 3 TMD,J W.P.No. 20833 of 2021 law but not on any technical ground or benefit of doubt. The copy of the award was also filed along with the explanation. However, the respondent No.2 held that 'where a person is involved in an offence of moral turpitude, he is disqualified for appointment' and therefore, the petitioner's provisional selection was cancelled. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the above submissions, submitted that the respondents have not given any evidence of statutory provision in support of their contention that the petitioner was involved in an offence of moral turpitude. He placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases in support of his case of honourable acquittal:
(1) Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Others 1;
(2) Union of India and Others Vs. Methu Meda 2;
(3) Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 902 of 2023.1 SLP (C) No.20525/2011
2 (2022) 1 SCC 1 4 TMD,J W.P.No. 20833 of 2021
5. It is further submitted that once an issue has been settled before the Lok Adalath, it is final and it has to be considered as an honourable acquittal and the petitioner's provisional selection ought not to have been cancelled for the said reason.
6. The Learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, has filed a counter affidavit justifying the cancellation order and also submitted that as per the rules, involvement in a case of moral turpitude is itself a disqualification for appointment. It is submitted that the petitioner has compromised with the victim, which amounts to admission of guilt and therefore, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to this case. It is submitted that in this case, the petitioner had sexual relation with the victim in the name of love and promised to marry her and subsequently, he postponed the matter and refused to marry the victim girl and even his parents have allegedly threatened to kill the victim, if she asked their son to marry her and it was in these circumstances, that accused No.1 was remanded to judicial custody and later even got married to another woman and thus, cheated the victim. It is submitted 5 TMD,J W.P.No. 20833 of 2021 that when the case was pending trial, both the parties compromised the case vide CC.No.35/2015 before the Lok Adalath at JFCM Court, Peddapalli on 31.05.2015 and therefore, it is a clear case of compromise to avoid a trial and not a case of clean and honourable acquittal.
7. Learned Special Government Pleader also relied upon the following case laws in support of the impugned order:
(1) Copy of Division Bench order of this Court passed in W.P.No.20348 of 2012, dated 14.06.2022.
(2) Copy of the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.28981 of 2019, dated 13.09.2023.
(3) Copy of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No.4960/2021, dated 25.08.2021.
8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the petitioner was involved in a case of cheating and subsequently he had been acquitted by the Court of Lok Adalath on a compromise arrived at between both the parties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others (cited supra) has observed as follows:
6
TMD,J W.P.No. 20833 of 2021
21. The verification of antecedents is necessary to find out fitness of incumbent, in the process if a declarant is found to be of good moral character on due verification of antecedents, merely by suppression of involvement in trivial offence which was not pending on date of filling attestation form, whether he may be deprived of employment? There may be case of involving moral turpitude/serious offence in which employee has been acquitted but due to technical reasons or giving benefit of doubt. There may be situation when person has been convicted of an offence before filling verification form or case is pending and information regarding it has been suppressed, whether employer should wait till outcome of pending criminal case to take a decision or in case when action has been initiated there is already conclusion of criminal case resulting in conviction/acquittal as the case may be. The situation may arise for consideration of various aspects in a case where disclosure has been made truthfully of required information, then also authority is required to consider and verify fitness for appointment. Similarly in case of suppression also, if in the process of verification of information, certain information comes to notice then also employer is required to take a decision considering various aspects before holding incumbent as unfit. If on verification of antecedents a person is found fit at the same time authority has to consider effect of suppression of a fact that he was tried for trivial offence which does not render him unfit, what importance to be attached to such non-disclosure. Can there be single yardstick to deal with all kind of cases?
22. The employer is given 'discretion' to terminate or otherwise to condone the omission. Even otherwise, once employer has the power to take a decision when at the time of filling verification form declarant has already been convicted/acquitted, in such a case, it becomes obvious that all the facts and attending circumstances, including impact of suppression or false information are taken into consideration while adjudging suitability of an incumbent for services in question. In case the employer come to the conclusion that suppression is immaterial and even if facts would have been disclosed would not have affected adversely fitness of an incumbent, for reasons to be recorded, it has power to condone the lapse. However, while doing so employer has to act prudently on due consideration of nature of post and duties to be rendered. For higher officials/higher posts, standard has to be very high and even slightest false information or suppression may by itself render a person unsuitable for the post. However same standard cannot be applied to each and every post. In concluded criminal cases, it has to be seen what has been suppressed is material fact and would have rendered an incumbent unfit for appointment. An 7 TMD,J W.P.No. 20833 of 2021 employer would be justified in not appointing or if appointed to terminate services of such incumbent on due consideration of various aspects. Even if disclosure has been made truthfully the employer has the right to consider fitness and while doing so effect of conviction and background facts of case, nature of offence etc. have to be considered. Even if acquittal has been made, employer may consider nature of offence, whether acquittal is honourable or giving benefit of doubt on technical reasons and decline to appoint a person who is unfit or dubious character. In case employer comes to conclusion that conviction or ground of acquittal in criminal case would not affect the fitness for employment incumbent may be appointed or continued in service.
Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the employer has to prudently, on due consideration of nature of post and duties to be rendered, has to take a decision and therefore, the effect of conviction or acquittal on the case may be and background of the case, nature of offence, etc., have to be considered while taking a decision.
9. In this case the petitioner is aspiring to be appointed as a police constable. The allegation against him is that he had sexual relationship with the victim lady, but subsequently, had refused to marry her. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has married another woman and subsequently due to the intervention of the elders, the matter was settled before the Lok Adalath Court. Though, the award of Lok Adalath is binding on the parties as a decision/decree of the Court, the nature of offence and the grounds on which the 8 TMD,J W.P.No. 20833 of 2021 petitioner has been acquitted have to be considered by the employer. In this case, the employer has held that the petitioner was involved in a case of moral turpitude. Though it is a case which can be said of involvement in moral turpitude, this Court also has to look into the circumstances of the case. In the present scenario, a number of youth are involving in such activities in the name of love and subsequently, when the relationship goes sour, they plead a foul play on the part of the other party. The victim is aged about 22 years and both the petitioner as well as victim admittedly belong to the same village. Therefore, the possibility of consensual relationship between the parties cannot be ruled out. Further, the petitioner has been acquitted from the charges on account of a settlement between the parties. The police verification certificate filed at Page No.77 of the writ papers show that the writ petitioner has a clean record except for the above case. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the employer respondent No.2, ought to have taken the same into consideration before cancelling the provisional selection of the petitioner.
10. In view of the above, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the 9 TMD,J W.P.No. 20833 of 2021 petitioner and dehors the Lok Adalath award in CC.No.35/2015, if the petitioner has a clean record otherwise, then he shall be considered for appointment and the respondents shall send him for training with the future next batch of constables.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI Date: 03.06.2024 bak