Vinod Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 7500 MP

                                   1                           WA-413-2021

        THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                               WA-413-2021
     (VINOD SHARMA VS. STATE OF M ADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS)


Gwalior dated : 17/11/2021

       Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

       Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi, learned Additional Advocate General

for respondents/State.

Learned counsel for rival parties are heard.

1. The present intra-court appeal has been filed under Section 2(1)

of the Madhya Pradhesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko

Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, challenging the order dated 17/02/2021

passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.3231/2017.

2. The appellant/petitioner, an aspirant, had applied for appointment

to the post of Platoon Commander. His candidature was subject matter

of scrutiny in view of disclosure of fact of criminal prosecution in the

declaration form. Upon scrutiny, the Scrutiny Committee resolved not to

recommend the case of the appellant for appointment on account of

complicity of the appellant in a crime registered at Police Station

Khaniyadhana, District Shivpuri as Crime No.125/2006 for the offences

punishable under Sections 147, 148, 325/149, 294, 323, 506B of IPC

whereupon charges were framed against the appellant and other

members of the unlawful assembly. The charges framed against the

accused are common in nature. The charges are at page 58 and for ready

reference and convenience quoted blow:-

(1) rqeus fnukad 10-07-2006 ds djhc 7%30 cts xzke cqdjkZ varxZr vkj{kh dsUnz [kfu;k/kkuk esa ,d fof/k fo:) lewg ds 2 WA-413-2021

lnL; jgrs gq;s ftldk fd lkekU; mÌs'; Qfj;knh vo/kfcgkjh dks LosPN;k migfr dkfjr djuk Fkk] dks vxzlj djus esa cy ;k fgalk dk iz;ksx dj cyokdkfjr fd;kA

(2) mDr fnukad le; o LFkku ij rqeus mDr fof/kfo:) lewg ds lnL; jgdj ftldk lkekU; mÌs';Qfj;knh dksmigfr dkfjr djuk Fkk] ds lkekU; mÌs'; dks vxzlj djus esa ?kkrd vk;q/k ykBh] Qjlkvkfn vkdzked vk;q/k ysdj cy ;k fgalk dk iz;ksx dj cyokdkfjr fd;kA

(3) mDr fnukad le; o LFkku ij rqeus mijksDr lkekU; mÌs'; dh iwfrZ ds vxz'kj.k esa Qfj;knh vo/kfcgkjh ,oa mlds cpkus vk;s eukst y[ku] HkwisUnz,oa yk<dqavj ds lkFk ekjihV dj LosPNk;k migfr dkfjr dhA

(4) mDr fnukad le; o LFkku ij rqeus mijksDr lekU;

vk'k; dhiwfrZ ds vxz'kj.k esa Qfj;knh dks cpkus vk;s yk<dqvj ds lkFk ekjihV dj LosPN;k ?kksj migfr dkfjr dhA

2.1 The Scrutiny Committee has considered the details of charges

with due opportunity to the appellant. The Committee has found that the

offfences registered against appellant were under Sections 147, 148,

325/149, 294, 323, 506B of IPC and the same tantamount to moral

turpitude; a conduct unbecoming of public servant. The Committee has

further observed that the character, integrity and honesty of a candidate

are of primary consideration for employment in police force; the

disciplined police force required to withstand confidence and faith of

people and not vulnerable in public domain. The person of tainted

character and reputation may not be trusted with sensitive nature of duty

of maintaining public order/law & order. Faith and trust of the public at

large in police force can not be allowed to be either betrayed or allowed

to suffer setback at the hands of police personnel with vulnerable

conduct. Accordingly, the Scrutiny Committee resolved not to

recommend the candidature of the appellant.

3 WA-413-2021

3. Learned Single Judge relying upon the Judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the cases of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Vs.

Mehar Singh reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685, Parvez Khan Vs. State

of M.P. reported in 2015(2) SCC 591 & Avtar Singh Vs. Union of

india & Ors in SLP (C) No.20525/2011 decided on 21/07/2016

reached the conclusion that no exception can be taken to rejection of the

candidature of the appellant by the Scrutiny Committee, particularly,

regard being had to the nature and duties of the post for which the

appellant had applied for.

4. Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, while

challenging the judgment of learned Single Judge has pressed hard on

the order of trial Judge wherein on an application for compromise, the

case was closed. He further submits that once the case was

compromised and the appellant was exonerated, nothing survived for

the Scrutiny Committee to act upon for rejecting the candidature of the

appellant, therefore, there is fallacy in the recommendations so made.

Learned Single Judge, therefore, has fallen in error while dismissing the

petition in question.

5. Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi, learned Additional Advocate General

for respondents/State on advance notice, contends that it is not only the

order of trial Court under reference determinative but the nature of the

allegations levelled against the appellant and the act or overt act

attributed to him in furtherance of common object to commit the alleged

offence forming an unlawful assembly. The charges leveled against the 4 WA-413-2021

appellant are well explicit of the clear complicity of the appellant in the

crime in an organized manner where the accused persons with a

common intention to commit the offence had formed an unlawful

assembly and attacked the complainant and others armed with deadly

weapon, therefore, the appellant can not be said to have had no

proximity with the alleged crime or put up the claim that he had been

honourably acquitted.

5.1 The aforesaid consideration becomes all the more relevant and

necessary regard being had to the nature of duties of post under

reference. The principles propounded in the case of Mehar Singh

(Supra) are squarely applicable to the factual matrix in hand. Hence, the

learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality while it refrained

from interfering in the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee and

consequential order of the rejection of candidature of the appellant. The

appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced and regard

being had to the nature of allegations made against the appellant in the

charges framed, this Court finds substantial force in the submissions

advanced by Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi, learned Additional Advocate

General for respondents/State. Law is well settled. It is not only the

acquittal in criminal case but the gravity of the offence and the degree of

involvement with impact in the mind of general public are also

determinative in the matter of consideration of the candidature of the

candidate, particularly in public employment; police force. The case in 5 WA-413-2021

hand clearly demonstrates that the allegation against the appellant was

that of active participation in an offence of formation of unlawful

assembly with common intention assaulting the complainant with

deadly weapon. As a matter of fact, accusation of formation of unlawful

assembly by itself tantamount to moral turpitude as rightly found by the

Scrutiny Committee and therefore, the rejection of the candidature of

the appellant by Scrutiny Committee can not be faulted.

7. Consequently, the order of learned Single is found to be

impeccable in nature not warranting interference under intra-Court

appellate jurisdiction.

8. Accordingly, the appeal being sans merits is hereby dismissed.

(Rohit Arya) (Deepak Kumar Agarwal) Judge Judge

(Dubey)

Digitally signed by SUNEEL DUBEY

SUNEEL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=157244b0239a6fd662b29b00a11fc6

DUBEY 6a5e160f585aa7a92425f380d476b32818, pseudonym=046B231C591E29491F36ABD15 6EBF3A713937186, serialNumber=4009CAE962958E019ADDF04 E87EFD5C07FA5D0C38532D550F61B55401A 275B8C, cn=SUNEEL DUBEY Date: 2021.11.18 15:18:00 -08'00'