Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Kumar vs Union Of India Ministry Of Defence on 8 February, 2022
Author: Sheel Nagu
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 8th OF FEBRUARY, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 503 of 2022
Between:-
VINOD KUMAR S/O KEDAR LAL , AGED
ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASTE ST
R/O HOUSE NO. 17 POST KAPREN VILLAGE
BALOD TEHSIL KESORAIPATAN DISTRICT
BUNDI (RAJASTHAN)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY ROOM NO. 136,
SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI (DELHI)
2. ORDNANCE FACTORY THROUGH ITS
GENERAL MANAGER AYUDH NAGAR, ITARSI
(M.P.) A UNIT OF MUNITIONS INDIA LDT.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI J.K. JAIN, ASSTT. SOLICITOR GENERAL)
(Heard through Video Conferencing)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE SHEEL
NAGU passed the following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is filed assailing the
order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench dated
21.12.2021 by which OA No.200/00350/2021 preferred by the petitioner was
dismissed thereby upholding impugned order dated 13.03.2019 cancelling the
candidature of petitioner for appointment to the post of Chemical Processor
Worker(Semi-skilled) in Ordnance Factory, Itarsi.
2. The candidature was cancelled since on verification of criminal
antecedents it was found that though petitioner had been acquitted on
Signature Not Verified
26.05.2017 of the charges for offences punishable under Section 376, 384,
SAN
Digitally signed by YOGESH KUMAR
SHIRVASTAVA
Date: 2022.02.11 15:40:16 IST
509 of IPC read with Section 4 of POCSO Act but the said acquittal was
treated by the employer to be based on benefit of doubt and not
honourable/clean.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Vijay Kumar Tripathi has
drawn attention of this Court to the judgment of acquittal dated 26.05.2017
specially paragraph 29, 30, 31 and 32 to contend that bare reading of the
same reveals that the trial court came to a finding from the evidence on record
that the very complaint made by the prosecutrix against the petitioner, which
was the genesis of the entire incident was made by prosecutrix to save herself
from disrepute. In this background, learned counsel submits that when the
genesis of the crime itself was doubted then the trial court ought to have
treated the acquittal as clean and honourable. For this purpose, learned
counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of Apex Court in
Mohammed Imran vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2019) 17 SCC
6 9 6 , the judgment 13.10.2020 passed by this Court in WA No.594/2020
(State of M.P. and others vs. Yogesh Choudhary) and judgment of Bombay
High Court Nagpur Bench dated 30.08.2018 in WP No.2800/2018 (Union of
India and others vs. Ganesh Wasudeo Padhal and another).
4. It is now well settled that unless the acquittal in criminal trial is
honourable and clean, the employer has enough discretion to find a candidate
to be unfit for employment, subject to various other factors such as
sensitivity and job requirement of the post involved.
5. The post in question herein was Chemical Processor Worker(Semi-
skilled) in a defence establishment (Ordnance Factory, Itarsi) and therefore, it
cannot be said that the post was not sensitive. The sensitivity involved in a
post may not be of such high degree as involved in a disciplined/uniformed
service but since the organization where the petitioner would have been
employed was under the Ministry of Defence catering to the requirements of
the Armed Forces, the element of sovereignty of the nation comes into being.
6. More so, the judgment of acquittal dated 26.05.2017 as aforesaid, in
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by YOGESH KUMAR
SHIRVASTAVA
Date: 2022.02.11 15:40:16 IST
the considered opinion of this Court, is not honourable and clean. Learned
counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the prosecutrix who was
minor supported her police statement by making implicative testimony in the
Court. It is only that the Trial Court after indulging in marshalling of evidence
came to a finding that initial complaint made by prosecutrix appears to be
false. Thus, the prosecution story was not out-rightly rejected or the offence
was not disproved.
7. In this view of the matter, the judgment of acquittal is based more on
benefit of doubt and therefore is not a clean and honourable acquittal.
8. Reliance of learned counsel for petitioner to the decision of Apex
Court in Mohd. Imran (supra) is of no avail since in the said case the
prosecutrix in a trial involving offence of rape resiled from her earlier
statement. Reliance on the Division Bench decision in the case of Yogesh
Choudhary (supra) is also of no avail since it is based on the decision of
Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Imran (supra). The case of Division
Bench of Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench rendered in Ganesh Wasudeo
Padhal (supra) is further of no avail to the petitioner as in the said case the
offences involved were punishable under Section 323, 447, 506 read with 34
IPC which were miner in nature.
9. Consequently, no case for interference is made out and the present
petition stands dismissed.
(SHEEL NAGU) (SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
YS
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by YOGESH KUMAR
SHIRVASTAVA
Date: 2022.02.11 15:40:16 IST
