Madhya Pradesh High Court
Uday Bhan Singh Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 January, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1 WP-23425-2017
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP No. 23425 of 2017
(UDAY BHAN SINGH GURJAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 03-01-2022
Shri Ashish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Aditya Khandekar, learned Penal Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.
By filing of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"i) call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the
petitioner.
ii) quash the impugned order dt.21.9.2017 in the light of
verdict of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar
Pandoria Vs. State of MP & ors (2016 (4) MPLJ-431) and
hold that the petitioner is entitled to work on the post on which he
has been given appointment with continuity of service from the
date of his termination i.e. 26.7.13 and also entitled for back
wages and consequential benefits.
iii) grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the
factts and circumstances of the case."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is
arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust and illegal, therefore the same be liable to be
set aside. The respondents while passing the impugned order have ignored
the directions of this Court dated 21.06.2017 as well as the verdict of the
Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Ors (2016
(4) MPLJ-332). Admittedly, the petitioner has been honorably acquitted in
the criminal offence registered under Section 326 of the IPC. On perusal of
the impugned order dated 21.09.2017 (Annexure P/1), it can be seen that only
reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is that the acquittal of the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
petitioner is not "clean or honorably acquittal". Therefore, he is not entitled
Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Date: 2022.01.05 10:26:06 IST
2 WP-23425-2017
for taking back in service. As such, the case of the petitioner deserves to be
reconsidered in the light of honorable acquittal in offence under Section 326
of the IPC.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed
the prayer and submitted that the case of the petitioner to adjudge his
suitability for appointment in the Police Department was considered by the
Screening Committee at the headquarter in its meeting dated 25.07.2017 on
the principles laid down in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) but since the
petitioner was found to be implicated for the offence under Section 326 of the
IPC (Offence involving moral turpitude), he has been found unfit for being
continued/appointed in the Police Department.
There are other 3 criminal cases, in which he has been acquitted on
grounds of compromise and prosecution withdrawn respectively. Earlier vide
order dated 21.06.2017 passed in W.P.No.5388/2013, the matter was
remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee for reconsideration of candidature
of the petitioner as per Avtar Singh (supra). Earlier rejection of the
candidature of the petitioner vide order dated 26.07.2013 would itself reveals
that the petitioner was not implicated only in one criminal case but there were
as many as four other cases wherein the petitioner was found to be involved.
Learned counsel for the State relied on the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case State of M.P. and others vs. Parvez Khan (2015) 2 SCC 591 to
contend that if a candidate is to be recruited to the police services, he must be
worthy confidence of an utmost rectitude and must have impeccable
character and integrity. The persons have criminal antecedents would not fall
within the ambit of the said category.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties, on perusal of the impugned
order, it can be seen that the only ground for rejection is the case registered
under Section 326 of the IPC and in three other cases the petitioner has been
acquitted have not been considered at all. The matter needs a deeper probe as
the career of the petitioner is at stake.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Date: 2022.01.05 10:26:06 IST
3 WP-23425-2017
In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
matter deserves to be remanded back to the competent authority for
reconsideration of the judgments passed by the criminal Courts in different
cases and pass a reasoned and speaking order. As a consequence, the
impugned order dated 21.9.2017 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside.
Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the competent authority of the
respondents to reconsider the same in accordance with law and pass a
reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order
passed today.
This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
The Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
C.c. as per rules.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)
JUDGE
vinay*
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Date: 2022.01.05 10:26:06 IST
