Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mp Power Generating Co. Ltd. vs Jitendra Kumar Chandelkar on 17 June, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
W.A. No.503/2021
M.P. Power Generating Co. Ltd & another
-Versus-
Jitendra Kumar Chandelkar & another
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:-
Hon'ble Shri Justice Mohammad Rafiq, Chief Justice.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting ? Yes/Not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Anoop Nair, Advocate for the appellants.
Whether approved for
reporting?
Law laid down
Significant
paragraph Nos.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(Jabalpur: 17-06-2021)
Per: V.K.Shukla, J.
The present intra court appeal is filed under Section 2(1) of M.P.
Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005,
being aggrieved by the order dated 10-03-2021 passed in W.P.
No.552/2020 (Jitendra Kumar Chandelkar Vs. M.P. Power Generating
Co. Ltd. Satpura Thermal Powar Sarni, District Betul and others) passed
by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the
respondent no.1 was allowed and the impugned order removing the
petitioner from service for the reasons that he was not found suitable to
serve the appellant department has been set aside and the writ petitioner
has been directed to be taken back in service but shall not be entitled for
any back wages for the period he remained out of service.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant had conducted a
recruitment process for the post of Security Guard in their organization.
The respondent no.1 was one of the candidate and after going through
the selection process, a select list (Annexure P-2) was issued. The
appellant after processing the documents of the respondent no.1 (writ
petitioner) also sent his case for police verification and it was informed
by the police authorities that two criminal cases having Crime No.90/09
under Sections 376(2)(n), 450 and 352 of IPC and another case having
Crime No.101/2009 under Sections 306 and 34 were registered against
the writ petitioner, in which he was acquitted. In the appointment order
dated 10-07-2017, it was mentioned that the writ petitioner's character
verification will be forwarded to the police authorities and if any
adverse remark is present then the services of the respondent no.1/writ
petitioner will be immediately terminated.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Home
Ministry introduced circular dated 24-07-2018 with regard to mandatory
police verification of employees after their appointment. All the previous
circulars with regard to police verification were set aside by the
introduction of the said circular. As per Clause 6(1)(a) of the circular, it
has been stated that if any appointee has faced any criminal trial with
regard to offences involving moral turpitude, irrespective of the fact
that the appointee has been acquitted in trial looking into the gravity of
offences alleged to be committed, it would be decided whether the
appointee is fit for service or not. It is submitted that after receipt of the
police report from the police authorities, looking into the job profile of
the respondent no.1, he was removed from service on the ground of
unsuitability. The said order was challenged in the writ petition on the
ground that he has been acquitted in both the cases, therefore, he cannot
be said to be unfit for the Government service. The appellant submitted
that as per police verification and the Government circular the
employment of the writ petitioner with the appellant organization was
not desirable.
4. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the sides held that in
both the criminal cases, the writ petitioner has been acquitted and the
employer is required to consider various aspects given by the trial
court and the learned Single Judge also relied on the judgment of Avtar
Singh Vs. Union of India and others) passed by the Supreme Court
reported in (2016)8 SCC 471 to hold that the dismissal of the
respondent was wrong.
5. In the present case, the writ petitioner has disclosed all the
information regarding criminal cases faced by him . It is urged that the
writ petitioner was honourably acquitted by the trial court, therefore
the substratum of cause which led to registration of offence under moral
turpitude has ceased to exist.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
high standard of conduct and discipline is expected from the applicant
who is seeking appointment as Security Guard. It is contended that the
writ petitioner faced two criminal trials; ST No.48/2010 under Sections
376(2)(g), 450 and 342 of IPC and S.T.No.186/2009 under Section 306 of
IPC. Both the cases involved offences of moral turpitude, hence in
view of circular dated 24-07-2018 which prescribes removal from service
in case of adverse remarks in the police verification, services of the writ
petitioner were rightly terminated. It is true that terms and conditions of
the appointment of the writ petitioner provides that the appointment shall
be subject to satisfactory verification of character and antecedents as
per Rules and Regulations of the M.P. Power Generating Co. Ltd. ( for
short "MPPGCL"). The candidates appointment will be terminated if any
adverse information appears in the police verification by the police
authorities.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants heavily relied on the judgment
passed in the case of Avtar Singh (Supra) and referring to para 38.5 of the
said judgment submitted that the Apex Court has held that in a case
where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded
criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents,
and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
8. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration that while
examining the antecedents of the applicant, the employer did not find
any other criminal case registered against him except for two cases in
which he was cleanly acquitted or any other complaint registered
during his probation period. In ST No.48/2010 registered under Section
376(2)(g), 450 and 342 of IPC, the Court has not only rejected the story
projected by the prosecutrix, but has further observed that the prosecutrix
had previous enmity with the writ petitioner and it cannot be ruled out
that the FIR against the writ petitioner was registered with an intent to
pressurize him in a rape case filed by the daughter of co-accused
Ramesh against the prosecutrix's son. In the same manner, in ST
No.186/2009, the writ petitioner was acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 306 of the IPC as the prosecution has failed to
establish its case. The employer while considering the suitability of
candidate/employee has to take into consideration various aspects
whether any material information was suppressed or false information
was given by the candidate and in case he was acquitted of the offence,
the nature of acquittal. In the present case, the employer has failed to
consider the antecedents as per the law laid down in the case of Avtar
Singh (supra) wherein it has been held that while considering the
question whether an employee on probation can be discharged /refused
appointment though he has been acquitted of the charges if his case was
not pending when form was filled, has observed that in such matters
employer is bound to consider the grounds of acquittal and various
aspects, over all conduct of the employee during probation including the
accusations which has been levelled.
9. In view of the above, we do not perceive any illegality in the
order passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the impugned
order of termination of the services of the writ petitioner for the reason
that he was not found suitable to serve the appellant. Accordingly, the
writ appeal is dismissed.
( MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) ) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
hsp.
Digitally signed
by HAR SAHAY
PATERIYA
Date: 2021.06.22
11:55:40 +05'30'
