Madhya Pradesh High Court
Home Department vs Rajkumar Raikwar on 13 July, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.A. No.603/2020
1
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.vs. Rajkumar Raikwar
Indore, Dated:13/07/2021 :-
Heard with the consent of parties through Video
Conferencing.
Shri Aditya Garg, learned Government Advocate for the
appellants/State.
Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard on IA No.1523/2020 an application for condonation of
delay of 245 days, as calculated by the Registry.
2. Learned Government Advocate for the appellants/State
submits that after getting the impugned order of learned Single
Judge passed on 26/07/2019 in W.P. No.27649/2018, the
Department sought opinion of Government Advocate on
17/02/2020. After receiving the opinion dated 25/02/2020 and
18/03/2020, the Officer-in-Charge of the case sent the case of
respondent alongwith the opinion to the Higher Authorities at
Bhopal for seeking necessary sanction to file the writ appeal. In
turn, the Law Department granted permission to file the writ appeal
on 05/06/2020 and thereafter this appeal was filed on 23/06/2020.
3. The time consumed is because of the official procedure and
even though application for condonation of delay is not happily
worded, the same may be allowed in the interest of justice.
4. Shri Garg advanced arguments on merits also by contending
that the respondent was facing a criminal case for committing
certain offences under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and
Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. His acquittal in the year 2005
was not an acquittal on merits. The certificate issued by his
erstwhile employer namely Army was called "Testimony for Civil
Employment" was relating to civil employment and not for a
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.A. No.603/2020
Department like Police. The entries mentioned in said certificate
are not reflecting his integrity and character etc. The Selection
Committee is the best Judge to decide the suitability of a candidate
but the learned Single Judge was not justified in acting as Appellate
Authority to take a different decision, than the decision taken by the
Selection Committee. Shri Garg by placing reliance on a judgment
of Supreme Court urged that the acquittal of respondent, by no
stretch of imagination can be said to be "An Hon'ble Acquittal".
5. It is urged that for all these cumulative reasons, on merits
also the impugned order call for interference.
6. Shri Jitendra Verma opposes the application for condonation
of delay by contending that the limitation as per M.P. High Court
Rules, 2008 to file the writ appeal is 90 days. The opinion itself is
sought by the OIC after a period of limitation of 90 days and
thereafter also there is no plausible and justifiable explanation for
delay. The delay is unreasonable and unexplained in every step. He
placed reliance on a recent order of this Court in W.A.
No.1260/2020 and other connected matters decided on 16/06/2021.
On merits also, Shri Jitendra Verma supported the impugned order
of learned Single Judge.
7. We have heard the parties at length.
8. We find substance in the objection taken by Shri Jitendra
Verma. The application is cryptic and does not explain delay
satisfactorily. For the first time, the Department asked for opinion
of A.G. Office on 17/02/2020 against an order which was passed on
26/07/2019. The first opinion itself was sought after expiry of
period of limitation. Thus, we are unable to hold that the delay is
properly explained by appellants/State. Pertinently, in the present
days, every order of High Court is immediately made available on
the official web-site of High Court of Madhya Pradesh. No reasons
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.A. No.603/2020
are assigned in the I.A for the delay between 26.7.2019 and
17.2.2020.
9. Considering these aspects and recent judgment of Supreme
Court, this Court recently in W.A.No.1260/2020 (Home
Department vs. Ankit Solanki) opined as under:-
"7) In Bherulal (supra), the Apex Court held as
under:-
3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the
Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the
authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements
for a period of time when technology had not advanced
and a greater leeway was given to the Government
(Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr vs. Mst.
Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107). This position is more
than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office
of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living
Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the
Court observed as under:
"12) It is not in dispute that the person(s)
concerned were well aware or conversant
with the issues involved including the
prescribed period of limitation for taking
up the matter by way of filing a special
leave petition in this Court. They cannot
claim that they have a separate period of
limitation when the Department was
possessed with competent persons familiar
with court proceedings. In the absence of
plausible and acceptable explanation, we
are posing a question why the delay is to be
condoned mechanically merely because the
Government or a wing of the Government
is a party before us.
Though we are conscious of the fact that in
a matter of condonation of delay when
there was no gross negligence or deliberate
inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal
concession has to be adopted to advance
substantial justice, we are of the view that
in the facts and circumstances, the
Department cannot take advantage of
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.A. No.603/2020
various earlier decisions. The claim on
account of impersonal machinery and
inherited bureaucratic methodology of
making several notes cannot be accepted in
view of the modern technologies being
used and available. The law of limitation
undoubtedly binds everybody including
the Government."
(Emphasis supplied)
8) Thus, in the present days of technical
advancement, the orders and judgments of the Courts are
made available on the Website of the Court immediately
which can be seen by any litigant. Thus, in cases of
delay, the party seeking condonation must show with
accuracy and precision as to how such delay has been
caused. The sufficient cause must be related with the
period when delay was caused and not subsequent
thereto. We are unable to hold that as a Rule of thumb, in
all cases where Govt. is an appellant, we should take a
pragmatic view and condone the delay as a matter of
course. In each case, delay must be explained
meticulously. We see no merits in the contention that
delay in cases of Govt. is a "necessary evil".
9) If we assuage our conscience and condone such
delay in a mechanical manner by treating it as a
"necessary evil", it will look more and more
necessary and less and less evil. We are unable to
persuade ourselves with this line of argument.
10) In the facts and circumstances of these cases, the
delay is enormous and not properly explained. In
absence of showing "sufficient cause", the IAs cannot be
allowed. Accordingly, IAs are dismissed.
11) Resultantly, writ appeals are also dismissed."
10. The appellants/State in the instant case also is unable to show
"Sufficient Cause". Thus, the question for condoning the delay of
245 days does not arise. Hence, IA No.1523/2020 for condonation
of delay is dismissed. Resultantly, writ appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.A. No.603/2020
11 Ordinarily, when we decline the prayer for condonation of
delay and consequently dismiss the writ appeal, we do not deal
with the merits of the case. However, as noticed, Shri Garg,
learned G.A strenuously argued on the merits of the case. In State
of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO, (2005) 3 SCC 752 while considering
the question of delay, the Apex Court considered the merits as
well. Thus, as an exceptional case, we deem it proper to observe
that on merits also the appellant has no case.
12. The respondent was admittedly working with Indian Army.
He was acquitted in the year 2005 by the Court of competent
jurisdiction. The judgment of criminal court makes it clear that his
acquittal is on merits and it is a clean acquittal. Thus, judgment
cited by Shri Garg, learned G.A is of no help to him.
13. The learned Single Judge has given following finding in the
impugned order:-
"It is not a case where a fresh candidate has applied
for a job having a past criminal track record even
though, it is of acquittal. The petitioner's case cannot
be treated at par with other candidates as he has
applied under special category, which is meant for ex-
army persons."
(emphasis supplied)
14. After acquittal from the criminal case in the year 2005, he
served the Army for nine more years till 2014.
15. The "testimonials for civil employment" contains Entry
No.8 which is pregnant with a finding that the respondent is
"physically fit, intelligent, dependable, bold and hard working
O.R who has taken keen interest to work independently, his
understanding is above average and he is ever ready to take more
than his share". The Army has treated the respondent as
"dependable". This shows that his integrity and competence was
beyond any shadow of doubt. It is a matter of common knowledge
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.A. No.603/2020
that job in the Army is very arduous as compared to the job in
state police. The respondent was found to be fit to serve the
Army after his acquittal for nine years, cannot be said to be either
unsuitable or ineligible. The authorities have erroneously passed
the impugned order which was arbitrary and shocks the conscience
of the court. We are unable to hold that police department is such
a heaven where only angels can enter. Looking from any angle, we
are unable to persuade ourselves that respondent was unsuitable or
ineligible.
16. In our view, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this
case, the learned Single Judge has taken a correct and plausible
view which does not warrant any interference in the light of
judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2016) 3 SCC 340
[Management of Narendra & Company Private Ltd. Vs.
Workmen of Narendra & Company]. For these cumulative
reasons, Writ Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. It is made
clear that this order is passed in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case and shall not be treated as a precedent in
future.
(SUJOY PAUL) (ANIL VERMA)
Judge Judge
vm
Digitally signed by
VARGHESE MATHEW
Date: 2021.07.14
16:59:15 -07'00'
