Telangana High Court
Jakkula Bhaskar vs The State Of Telangana, And 2 Others on 10 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.No. 1476 of 2021
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned memorandum vide Rc.No.130/Rect/Admn.4/2020, dated 19.12.2020 issued by the respondent No.2, as illegal, arbitrary and against the Principles of Natural Justice and consequently to direct the respondents to set aside the impugned memorandum dated 19.12.2020 and to direct them to consider the candidature of the petitioner's provisional selection to the post of SCT PC (AR) in Hyderabad, in Recruitment Notification-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 petitioner belongs to BC-A Community and pursuant to the notification issued by the respondents for selection to the post of SCT PC(AR), he applied for the same and he has been provisionally selected, subject to verification of antecedents, certificate and medical fitness. It is submitted that in the attestation form, the petitioner has given the details of the criminal case registered against him in Consecutive (CON) 2 TMD,J W.P.No. 1476 of 2021 No.1418/2018, under Sections 185(a) and 207 of M.V.Act of Kukatpally Traffic Police Station and that he had pleaded guilty and was convicted for a period of seven days by the Court IV Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally in S.T.C.No.21485/2018. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 has issued a show cause notice vide Rc.No.213/Rectt./ Genl.2/2019, dated 24.02.2020, to show cause as to why the petitioner's provisional selection to the post of SCT PC (AR), in Hyderabad, should not be cancelled since the petitioner was involved in a Drunk and Drive Case. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply stating that on Vinayaka Nimajjanam day, his friends forced him to take one sip of alcohol and immediately thereafter he left the place for another work by driving and was caught by Kukatpally Police and as directed by the police, on the next morning, he attended the counselling with his family members and as per the Court orders, he suffered in jail for seven days. It is submitted that he tendered his apology and promised that such incident would never happen in future and requested to consider his candidature for training. The respondent No.2, however, issued a Memorandum vide Rc.No.213/Rectt./Genl.2/2019, dated 07.09.2020 cancelling the petitioner's provisional selection by holding that "the 3 TMD,J W.P.No. 1476 of 2021 explanation submitted by Sri.Jakkula Bhasker (Reg.No.1141983) has been examined along with the connected records that in the case of Drunken and Drive, the candidate was jailed for seven days and deserves to be viewed seriously and therefore, the provisional selection of the candidate deserves to be cancelled".
3. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.19775/2020 and vide orders dated 10.11.2020, the impugned order was set aside and the respondents were directed to examine the case of the petitioner in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh's case with respect to involvement and conviction in a petty case and to pass appropriate orders. It is submitted that the consequent thereto, the respondent No.2 has issued the impugned memorandum vide Rc.No.130/Rect/Admn.4/2020, dated 19.12.2020, cancelling the provisional selection of the petitioner herein. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been sincere and transparent in divulging the information about the criminal case and conviction in the criminal case against the petitioner and had also explained the 4 TMD,J W.P.No. 1476 of 2021 circumstances under which the offence has occurred and had apologized for the same and had promised that such incident will never happen in future. It is submitted in spite of the same, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner in proper prospective and also the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others 1. It is submitted that the respondents have again reiterated their earlier stand that the involvement of the petitioner in Drunk and Drive Case, is a case of Moral Turpitude and accordingly the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled. It is submitted that the petitioner had explained the circumstances under which he had consumed the alcohol and that he was aware of the harm it would cause if the petitioner had driven the vehicle in such a condition and it is submitted that for a petty case where there occurred no incident, the petitioner should not be banned for life by refusing the employment on the said ground.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order of the Allahabad High Court in the case 1 (2016) 8 SCC 471 5 TMD,J W.P.No. 1476 of 2021 of Mangali vs. Chhakki Lal and Others 2, wherein the case 'moral turpitude' has been considered and the Court has explained the term 'moral turpitude' to mean as under:
5. With great respect, it appears to me that some or the observations made in these decisions have been too widely stated and if followed literally may make every act punishable in law an offence involving moral turpitude that however could not be the intention with which those observations were made. From consideration of the dictionary meaning of the words 'moral' and 'turpitude' as well as the real ratio dividend of the cases the principle which emerges appear to be that the question whether a certain offence involves moral turpitude or not will necessarily depend on the circumstances in which the offence is committed. It is not every punishable act that can be considered to be an offence involving moral turpitude. Had that been so, the qualification "involving moral turpitude" would not have been used by the Legislature and it would have disqualified every person who had been convicted of any offence, the tests which should ordinarily be applied for judging whether a certain offence does or does not involve moral turpitude appear to be: (1) whether the act leading to a conviction was such as could shock the moral conscience of society in general, (2) whether the motive which led to the act was a base one and (3) whether on account of the act having been committed the perpetrator could be considered to be of a depraved character or a person who was to be looked down upon by the society.
6. No absolute standard can be laid down for deciding whether a particular act is to be considered one involving moral turpitude but the above are the general tests which should be applied and which should in most cases be sufficient for enabling one to arrive at a correct conclusion on the question.
2 (1963) AIR (Allahabad) 527 6 TMD,J W.P.No. 1476 of 2021
6. It is submitted hat in the said case also, the issue was possession of bhang in a small quantity and the Hon'ble Court has considered that the possession of consumption of bhang in small quantity is not a prohibited item in the area in which the petitioner therein lived, but was a prohibited item in Kanpur, where he was intercepted and has been arrested. It is submitted that in the case of the petitioner herein also the consumption of alcohol was not found to be in a very large extent and therefore, the respondents should be directed to consider the case of the petitioner leniently with a further promise that he will not commit such offence in future and therefore, the respondents should be directed to consider his case for appointment.
7. Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.20348 of 2012, dated 14.06.2022, wherein the Division Bench has held that the decision to assess the suitability of a candidate, having regard to involvement in criminal case should be left to the Selection Committee. It is submitted that whether the Selection Committee has to verify the antecedents, nature of crime, nature of acquittal, whether it is based on benefit of 7 TMD,J W.P.No. 1476 of 2021 doubt; witnesses turning hostile; was a compromise resulted in not deposing against accused; offence compounded etc., which was observed that near narrow window is available to the candidate to seek employment in the police force if he was involved in crime. On the other hand, the greater latitude is given to the appointing authority/recruiting agency in clearing a candidate on antecedent verification.
8. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner's provisional selection was cancelled not only because of his involvement in criminal case, but because of conviction in the criminal case. It is submitted that the rule provides for disqualifying a candidate if he has been convicted by a Criminal Court.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner had also argued on the proportionality of the punishment and submitted that for a petty offence such as this, the petitioner should not be banished from public employment forever.
10. Learned Government Pleader stated that the said principle of disproportionality of punishment would not apply in this case as it is not a case of misconduct during the course of 8 TMD,J W.P.No. 1476 of 2021 employment, but it is with regard to the fitness of a person to enter into public employment and therefore, the contentions of the petitioner are not acceptable.
11. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the reason for cancellation of the provisional selection of the petitioner was that he has been convicted for a period of seven days for the offences under Sections 185(a) and 207 of M.V.Act. The petitioner on breath analyzer, found to have consumed alcohol three times the normally allowed quantity. The petitioner has not challenged the order of punishment, but has undergone the punishment and had also not suppressed the same in the attestation form at the time of certificate verification. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the societal norms have changed and drinking is no longer a taboo, but is a part of many celebrations. However, the "Drunk and Drive" activity has been declared as prohibited activity as it has many a times caused accidents, resulting in deaths not only of the person who has consumed alcohol and was found to be driving, but also innocent passersby.
9
TMD,J W.P.No. 1476 of 2021
12. In view of the same, the menace of the Drunk and Drive has to be viewed seriously and strict action has to be taken in this regard. However, this Court is also aware of the hardships undergone by the candidates for selection to the post of Police Constables and having been provisionally selected for the said post, the petitioner was not being considered for appointment solely on the ground that he has been convicted for criminal offence for 'Drunk and Driving'. The stand of the department that the petitioner was involved in an offence of 'moral turpitude' and therefore, he cannot be considered for appointment, is in the opinion of this Court, not sustainable. An offence of moral turpitude would be such that the offence would cause grave hardship to the society. No doubt, if the petitioner had caused an accident by the Drunken Driving, it would have affected third parties and that it would become an offence against the society. However, the petitioner, though has been found to have consumed larger quantity of alcohol than is normally allowed, fortunately, there was no accident and the petitioner having realized his mistake, has apologized and has also promised that such an incident would not occur again. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others (cited supra) has held that for the petty/trivial 10 TMD,J W.P.No. 1476 of 2021 cases in which conviction has been recorded against the youth, the employer may in its discretion ignore such cases for public employment. Though, this Court is not finding fault with the authorities for canceling the provisional selection on the ground that the petitioner has been convicted by the Criminal Court, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents ought to have taken a lenient view in the matter, in the light of the confidential antecedent report on the petitioner. Admittedly there are no adverse remarks on the conduct of the petitioner. Therefore, drawing the extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of STC PC (AR) de hors the conviction made by the Criminal Court in the case of the petitioner herein. The petitioner shall give an undertaking that he shall not indulge in such offences in future and if it is found that the petitioner is indulging in such offences, his appointment shall forthwith be cancelled.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
11
TMD,J W.P.No. 1476 of 2021
14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 10.06.2024
bak