Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivam Singh Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 July, 2022
Author: Chief Justice
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 1st OF JULY, 2022
WRIT APPEAL No.544 OF 2022
Between:-
SHIVAM SINGH THAKUR, S/0 SHRI
VIJENDRA SINGH THAKUR, AGED ABOUT
28 YEARS, UNEMPLOYED, R/O VILLAGE
SASA, POST SHAHPUR, TEHSIL PATHARIA,
DISTRICT DAMOH, M.P.
..... APPELLANT
(BY SHRI A. S. RAIZADA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME
(POLICE) DEPARTMENT, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (M.P.)
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
POLICE HEADQUARTER JAHANGIRABAD,
BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL (M.P.)
3. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
POLICE, (SELECTION/RECRUITMENT)
POLICE HEADQUARTER JAHANGIRABAD,
BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL (M.P.)
4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAGAR,
(M.P.)
2
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI S.S. CHOUHAN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri
Justice Vishal Mishra, passed the following:
ORDER
Assailing the order dated 29.03.2022 passed in Writ Petition
No.2487 of 2018, whereby the writ petition was dismissed, the writ
petitioner is in appeal.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner applied for the post of Driver
(Constable) in the recruitment process of the Police Department. He
qualified the written examination. He was possessing all the requisite
qualification for the appointment to the post of Driver (Constable).
3. While filling the form known as Anupramaran form, he filled
up all the details particulars including the details of criminal case
registered against him. He was called up by the Special Branch of
Bhopal on 10.08.2018 and was required to attend the scrutiny
committee. The scrutiny committee considered the case of the
petitioner and declared him to be ineligible for the appointment to the
post of Driver (Constable). It is submitted that the committee has
considered the aspect that two criminal cases are being registered
against the petitioner in Crime No.122/2016 for the offence punishable
under Sections 147, 294, 323, 324 of Indian Penal Code and in Crime
No.8/2015 for the offence under Sections 279, 327, 338 of Indian
Penal Code. It is argued that he has already been acquitted in the
aforesaid cases vide judgment of acquittal dated 19.07.2016 in
Criminal Case No.684 of 2015.
4. The Authorities have not considered the aforesaid aspect of the
case and has adopted a different yardstick, while considering the cases
of similarly situated candidates. It is argued that as the petitioner has
already been acquitted and disclosed the correct information in the
verification form, therefore, the Authorities were required to consider
his case for grant of appointment, in terms of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India
reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 and recently in the case of Pawan
Kumar Vs. Union of India and another reported in 2022 SCC Online
SC 532. It is argued that the learned Writ Court has failed to consider
the aforesaid aspects and has rejected the writ petition. It is submitted
that the committee was required to consider the case of the petitioner,
the trivial nature of the offence registered against him. The nature of
post for which he has applied. The nature of duties to be discharged by
him but the aforesaid aspect has never been looked into by the
Authorities, only on the basis of the criminal case registered against
him, the committee has taken a decision not to grant any appointment.
The same is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Pawan Kumar (supra), therefore, the writ appeal
has been filed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State
has vehemently opposed the contention and has argued that the
admittedly the petitioner was having two other criminal cases
registered against him. Although he has disclosed the information with
respect to registration of criminal cases against him but he has been
acquitted on the basis of a compromise, in one of the cases and the
same does not amount to a clean acquittal. Even otherwise, in terms of
the settled proposition of law in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) in
paragraph 38.5 wherein it is 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 the antecedents and cannot be
compelled to appoint the candidate."
6. The aforesaid aspect was also considered in the case of
Commissioner of Police Vs. Mehar Singh reported in (2013) 7 SCC
685, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the aspect
that police force is a disciplined force shouldering the great
responsibility of maintaining the law and order in the society. The
people repose great faith and confidence in them. In such
circumstances, the person having a criminal antecedent will not fit in
this category, even if he is acquitted. It is the domain and within the
discretion of the employer to grant him appointment or not. In case the
employer is having a better option and a better candidate he can
always opt for appointment of a better candidate having no criminal
past. The learned Writ Court has rightly appreciated the aforesaid
aspect of the case and has rejected the writ petition.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. From the perusal of the record, the undisputed facts being that
the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Driver
(Constable) in pursuance to the recruitment process initiated by the
police department. He has also disclosed the factum of registration of
two criminal cases against him. It is not disputed that he was acquitted
on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. The
law with respect to the discretion of an Authority to consider and grant
appointment to an employee like the petitioner was considered by the
Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar
Singh (supra) wherein it is held as under ;-
"38.4.3 If acquittal had already been recorded in a case
involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious
nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean
acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given,
the employer may consider all relevant facts available as
to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to
the continuance of the employee.
38.5 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."
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the
similar aspect in the case of Mehar Singh (supra) and held as under :-
"The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the
great responsibility of maintaining law and order and
public order in the society. People repose great faith and
confidence in it. It must be worthy of that confidence. A
candidate wishing to join the police force must be a
person of utmost rectitude. He must have impeccable
character and integrity. A person having criminal
antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is
acquitted or discharged in the criminal case, that
acquittal or discharge order will have to be examined to
see whether he has been completely exonerated in the
case because even a possibility of his taking to the life of
crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force.
The Standing order, therefore, has entrusted the task of
taking decisions in these matters to the Screening
Committee. The decision of the Screening Committee
must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In recent
times, the image of the police force is tarnished.
Instances of police personnel behaving in a wayward
manner by misusing power are in public domain and are
a matter of concern. The reputation of the police force
has taken a beating. In such a situation, we would not
like to dilute the importance and efficacy of a mechanism
like the Screening Committee created by the Delhi Police
to ensure that persons who are likely to erode its
credibility do not enter the police force. At the same time,
the Screening Committee must be alive to the importance
of trust reposed in it and must treat all candidates with
even hand."
10. The case of the petitioner was considered by the scrutiny
committee and it was found that he is having a criminal antecedents
and his acquittal was not found to be a clean acquittal/honourable
acquittal. He was acquitted only on the basis of compromise entered
into between the parties. It is the discretion of an employer to consider
the case of employee like petitioner to grant him appointment or not.
The police force being a disciplined force having great responsibility
for maintaining law and order in the society wherein the people repose
great faith and confidence, the candidate to be appointed must be
worthy of that confidence. The applicant must be a person of utmost
rectitude and should have an impeccable character and integrity. It is
the domain of the Authorities to consider and decide whether to grant
an appointment to a person like petitioner. The discretion was
exercised by the Authorities while considering the case of the
petitioner by the committee who have decided not to appoint the
petitioner, as he is having a criminal cases registered against him.
11. The case law relied upon by the petitioner that is Pawan Kumar
(supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and
is distinguishable on facts for the reason that in that case the
complainant at very threshold has given an affidavit that due to
misunderstanding a criminal case was registered against the petitioner
of that case and he does not want to pursue the criminal case any
further. He has also being examined as PW-1 before the Trial Court
and has been declared hostile and it was case of a false involvement in
a criminal case.
12. In view of the settled legal proposition of law by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court no benefit can be extended to the petitioner. The Writ
Court has rightly appreciated the aforesaid aspects of the case and the
order impugned has rightly been passed and does not call for any
interference in the present writ petition.
13. The petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
AM.
Digitally signed by ANINDYA
SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY
Date: 2022.07.08 16:57:51 +05'30'
