On 2nd December 2022, the Supreme Court in a Division Bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar observed that the appellant could not have been denied the appointment solely on the ground that he was tried for the offence under Section 498A of IPC and that too, for the offence alleged to have happened in the year 2001 for which he was even acquitted in the year 2006 may be on settlement (between husband and wife). (Pramod Singh Kirar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.)
Facts of the Case:
Appellant herein applied for the post of Police Constable. In the verification form he disclosed of his being tried for an offence under Section 498A of the IPC. However, as he was involved in the criminal case earlier, though he was acquitted, his candidature was rejected by order dated 16.12.2014. The appellant filed the writ petition before the High Court against the cancellation of his selection/candidature and non-appointment. It was allowed and the cancellation and non-appointment were set-aside directing state to appoint him as a Police Constable with all consequential benefits including 50% back wages from the date on which other batchmates came to be appointed on the post of Constable. Thereafter, the state preferred writ appeal before the Division Bench of HC which was allowed and the earlier order was set aside. The review petition was dismissed by the HC and feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and the order passed by HC, the appellant has filed the present appeals.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The counsel for the appellant submitted that “the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court ought to have appreciated the fact that the case against the appellant was not for the serious offence but was for the offence under Section 498A of IPC which was out of a matrimonial dispute. They have not appreciated the fact that case for the offence under Section 498A of IPC was resulted in acquittal in the year 2006 in view of the settlement between husband and wife and the applications for the post of Constable were invited in the year 2013/2014. The appellant could not have been punished for whatever has happened before 7-8 years and that too, at that time the appellant was aged about 18 years and pursuing his studies. Therefore, the appellant could not have been denied the appointment merely on the ground that he was involved in a case for the offence under Section 498A of IPC and that too before 7 years and which resulted into acquittal.”
Contentions of the Respondents:
The counsel for the respondents submitted that “State while opposing the present appeals has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) as well as on a recent decision of this Court in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Anr. Vs. Anil Kanwariya; (2021) 10 SCC 136. It is observed and held by this Court that when a candidate/employee is involved in a criminal case it is ultimately for the employer to appoint such a person having criminal antecedents.”
Observations and Judgment of the Court:
The hon’ble court observed that “the appellant applied for the post of Constable in the year 2013 and as such was found to be meritorious and was found eligible to be appointed as Constable. In the verification form itself he declared that he was tried for the offence under Section 498A of IPC earlier. Therefore, as such there was no suppression on the part of the appellant in not disclosing true and correct facts. He came to be acquitted for the offence under Section 498A of IPC before he applied for the post of Constable. The appellant did not face the prosecution for the other offences of IPC.
Therefore, for whatever has happened in the year 2001 and the criminal case for the offence under Section 498A resulted in acquittal in the year 2006, the appellant should not be denied the appointment in the year 2013/2014. The case of Anil Kanwariya is not applicable on the present case. The Division bench of HC has materially erred in denying the appointment to the appellant on the post of Constable.”
The present appeal was allowed and the order passed by the learned single judge of the HC was restored setting aside directing to appoint the appellant to the post of Constable
Case: Pramod Singh Kirar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 8934-8935 Of 2022
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
Date: December 02, 2022.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
