Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Chodiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 January, 2022
Author: Pranay Verma
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP No. 28239 of 2021
(SURESH CHODIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Indore, Dated : 10-01-2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Mr Navneet Kishore Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner .
Heard.
01. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25-09-2020 passed by
the Senior Staff Officer, Home Guard, Civil Security and Disaster
Management whereby the case of the petitioner for his reappointment on the
post of Constable has been turned down on the basis of registration of
Criminal Case No. 40/2018 on 22-03-2018 at Police Station Bercha, District
Shajapur.
02. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during
pendency of the said case itself, by a letter dated 22-09-2018 (Annexure-P-4)
the Inspector General of Police had recommended for appointment of the
petitioner subject to final decision of the criminal case against him.
Subsequently by judgment dated 06-08-2019 passed in RCT No. 267/2018
the petitioner has been acquitted. The said fact has not been taken into
consideration while passing the impugned order dated 25-09-2020 and
reappointment of the petitioner has been denied solely on the basis of
registration of criminal case against him which is illegal.
03. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that it
appears that at the time of passing of the impugned order dated 25-09-2020
the fact of his acquittal does not appear to have been brought to the
knowledge of respondent No.6 by the petitioner as a result of which the
impugned order has been passed by treating the criminal case still to be
pending against the petitioner.
04. Be that as it may, the fact remains that by judgment dated 06-
Signature Not Verified
SAN
08-2019 the petitioner has been acquitted by the criminal court from criminal
Digitally signed by RASHMI
PRASHANT
Date: 2022.01.14 18:12:14 IST
case registered against him. The Inspector General of Police had himself by
letter dated 22-09-2018 recommended for appointment of the petitioner
subject to final outcome of the case. The fact of acquittal of the petitioner
does not appear to have been taken into consideration at the time of passing
of the order dated 25-09-2020. which hence deserves to be and is accordingly
set-aside.
05. The respondent No.6, Senior Staff Officer, Home Guard, Civil
Security and Disaster Management, Head Quarter, Jabalpur is directed to
consider the case of the petitioner afresh in light of his acquittal by judgment
dated 06-08-2019 and also by taking into consideration the recommendation
of the Inspector General of Police dated 22-09-2018 and appointment order
dated 24-01-2019 (Annexure-P-9) in respect of similarly situated persons.
However, it shall be open for him to take a final decision in the matter, in
accordance with law. The entire exercise be completed within a period of
two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The
outcome be communicated to the petitioner.
06. With the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on merits,
the petition stands disposed off.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
rashmi
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by RASHMI
PRASHANT
Date: 2022.01.14 18:12:14 IST
