Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Kumar Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 July, 2021
Author: Sheel Nagu
1
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Bench at Gwalior
WP-10059-2021
(Ravi Kumar Rajput Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)
Gwalior, Dated:09/ 07/2021
Shri S.S. Tomar, learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri A.K. Nirankari, learned Government Advocate for
respondents/State.
Learned counsel for rival parties are heard through video
conferencing.
This petition filed u/A.226 of Constitution of India assailing
the order dated 19.03.2021 (vide P/1) by which the candidature of
the petitioner for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in
Special Armed Force has been canceled on the ground that though
the petitioner has been acquitted by judgment dated 02.02.2021 in
R.C.T. No.1303237 of 2013 (State of M.P. Vs. Ravi Kirar and
Anr.) of the offence punishable u/Ss.419, 420 IPC & Section
3(d)/4 of M.P. Recognized Examination Act, 1937 but the said
acquittal is not honourable and clean for being based on benefit of
doubt.
Learned counsel for petitioner as well as State is heard on
the question of admission to final disposal.
The bare facts attending the instant case are that in the
recruitment held by Vyapam in 2016, the petitioner succeeded in
written as well as physical examination but his candidature was
kept in abeyance vide letter dated 06.06.2017 (vide P/4) owing to
pendency of criminal case arising out of Crime No.64/2013,
registered at Police Station Banmore, District Morena, alleging
offence punishbale u/Ss.u/Ss.419, 420 IPC & Section 3(d)/4 of
M.P. Recognized Examination Act, 1937. Petitioner was acquitted
of the said charges by judgment dated 02.02.2021 (vide P/5) but
the appointing authority found that judgment was not clean and
honourable and since the offences involved moral turpitude, the
candidature of the petitioner was canceled (vide P/1 and P/2
dated 19.03.2021 & 24.03.2021) respectively.
The only question which beg for an answer before this
Court is whether the acquittal (vide P/5) by the Court of
competent criminal jurisdiction is clean/honourable or not?
Bare perusal of marshalling of evidence and finding
recorded in the judgment of acquittal, in particular from para-24
onward of the judgment, it is evident that the complainant and
prosecution witnesses failed to identify the petitioner as the one
who was involved in the offence. However, the hand writing
expert (PW-10) Rajesh Ahuja in his examination-in-chief deposed
that in the answer-sheet, the handwriting was of the petitioner but
in the cross-examination, this witness did not clearly support his
stand in the examination-in-chief. However, the trial Court found
this witness to support the case of prosecution but not trustworthy
enough to bring home the charges in view of law laid down by the
Apex Court in various decisions that if the prosecution case is
founded on the sole testimony of expert witness then it is not safe
to justify a conviction. Accordingly, the learned trial judge by
extending the benefit of doubt acquitted the petitioner.
In view of the above discussion, it is clear as day light that
the acquittal is not honourable and clean. Instead it is based on
benefit of doubt which thus extends enough discretion with the
appointing authority to decide upon the question as to whether the
petitioner is fit to be inducted into a discipline force or not?
The discretion exercised in the present case is based though
on subjective satisfaction but founded on objective material which
cannot be termed as arbitrary.
The power of judicial review cannot interfere in domain of
appointing authority if the discretion exercised while taking the
decision is reasonable and has nexus with the object sought to be
achieved.
Consequently, the claim of petitioner cannot be
countenance.
Petition stands dismissed. No cost.
(Sheel Nagu) (Anand Pathak)
vpn Judge Judge
VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI
2021.07.13 10:46:16 +05'30'
VALSALA
VASUDEVAN
2018.10.26
15:14:29 -07'00'
