Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Kumar Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 July, 2022
Author: Maninder S Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI
ON THE 13th OF JULY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 16237 of 2017
Between:-
SANTOSH KUMAR BAGHEL S/O SHRI
MAHESH BAGHEL , AGED ABOUT 29
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: SERVICE
JAITPURKALA PS LAKHANWARA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AYUSH CHOUBEY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
J A H A N G I R A B A D BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
POLICE( SELECTION AND RECRUITMENT)
POLICE HEADQUARTERS BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE SEONI
SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE SINGRAULI
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BHOPAL
KAVYA /SURAKSHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
SAN
(BY SHRI GIRISH KEKRE, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR
THE RESPONDENTS/STATE. )
Digitally signed by PARMESHWAR GOPE
Date: 2022.07.19 16:07:43 IST
2
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition while praying for following
reliefs:-
"7.(i) To quash the impugned order ( Annexure
P/11) passed by the respondent No.5 and other dated 27-07-
2017 ( Annexure P-13) passed by respondent No. 5,
Superintendent of Police, Singrauli.
(ii) To direct the appointment of petitioner to the
post give to him earlier of Constable.
(iii) To grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case including cost of the litigation in favour of the
petitioner."
The facts as narrated in the petition reveal that the petitioner herein
participated in the process of selection against the post of Police
Constable accordingly, the petitioner was selected vide Annexure P/5
upon declaration of result. However, the said selection was subject to
verification as regards past antecedents of the petitioner therefore, upon
character verification, it was found that a criminal case was registered
against the petitioner which though, resulted in acquittal yet, the petitioner
was found unsuitable for selection ( Annexure P/11).
The petitioner challenged the said order by filing a petition before
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by PARMESHWAR GOPE
Date: 2022.07.19 16:07:43 IST
this Court in WP No. 4134/15, the same was disposed of with a direction
to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation in the light of
Judgment in the case of Awatar Singh Vs. Union of India and others
reported in 2016 (4) MPLJ 332.
Pursuant to the order of this Court, the representation was
considered and turned down vide order dated 27-07-2017 thus, assailing
the order dated 09-04-2014 (Annexure P/11) as well as 27-07-2017 (
Annexure P/13), the petitioner has filed this petition.
The petitioner contends the impugned order suffers from perversity
inasmuch as, the authority failed to appreciate that the petitioner was
acquitted and the acquittal was clean acquittal inasmuch as, the court came
to a categorical conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish its
case beyond reasonable doubt. It is the further submission of the
petitioner that it is not a case where the benefit of doubt was extended to
the petitioner thus, questioning the findings arrived at in paragraph-3(a),
3(b) and 4 of the impugned order dated 09-04-2014 contained in Annexure
P/11, the petitioner submits that the same deserves to set aside. Thus,
while placing reliance on the decision submits that it was a case of
honorable acquittal as per law laid down in the case of Joginder Singh
Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others (2015) 2 SCC 377 and
submits that the order impugned deserves to set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
authority while taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was
prosecuted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 324
Signature Not Verified
SAN
and 506-B of IPC and under Section 25(1-B) r/w Section 4 Arms
Digitally signed by PARMESHWAR GOPE
Date: 2022.07.19 16:07:43 IST
Act,1959 came to conclusion that a candidate seeking induction in Police
Force is required to be of impeccable character therefore, the petitioner
was rightly found unsuitable for the post inasmuch as, he was confronted
with a prosecution.
Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the
Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Awatar Singh Vs. Union of
India and others reported in 2016 (4) MPLJ 332.
Having heard the rival submissions of parties and upon perusal of
the record, it is necessary to examine the judgment of acquittal. A perusal
of paragraph-14 of the Judgment is relevant for the purpose of instant
matter therefore, the same is reproduced herein:-
,sls gh vfHk;kstu i{k ;g izekf.kr djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd vkjksih
izgykn] gfjjke] larks"k ,ao eksrhyky us Hkh Jhjke ds lkFk fof/k fo:) teko
dk xBu dj ?kkrd vk;q?k ls lqlfTtr gksdj cyok dkfjr dj lkekU;
mn~ns'; ds vxzlj.k esa Jhjke us ryokj ls ekjdj Qfj;knh dks LosPNrk
migfr dkfjr dhA vr% mDr vk/kkj ij vkjksih izgykn larks"k] eksrhyky ,ao
gfjjke dks /kkjk 148] [email protected] Hkk-na-la- ds vijk/k ls nks"keqDr dj Loar=
fd;k tkrk gSA"
A perusal of the same shows that the Court in unequivocal terms
concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner was guilty
of the alleged offence and resultantly, acquitted the petitioner.
In the considered view of this Court, this is a judgment of clean
Signature Not Verified
acquittal and therefore, the contention that the same is a judgment where
SAN
Digitally signed by PARMESHWAR GOPE
Date: 2022.07.19 16:07:43 IST
the benefit of doubt was extended to the petitioner is ill-founded. The
findings so arrived at paragraphs- 3(a), (b) and 4 of the impugned orders
are in the considered view of this court are contrary to law laid down by
the Apex Court catena of Judgements.
The Apex Court has held that merely upon registration of case, the
services of an employee cannot be dispensed with by a stroke of pen and
therefore, the authorities are required to take into consideration the nature
of offence, past antecedents and reformative theory.
The Apex Court in case of Awatar Singh (supra) in paras- 34 to
38 held as under :
"34. No doubt about it that verification of character and antecedents is
one of the important criteria to assess suitability and it is open to employer to
adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action should be based
upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects.
35. Suppression of information presupposes that what is suppressed
that Âœmatters not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on
due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to
cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a
person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered
right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt
with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with
objectivity having due regard to facts of cases.
36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of
post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only
to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties,
impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by authorities
Signature Not Verified
concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be
SAN
Digitally signed by PARMESHWAR GOPE
Date: 2022.07.19 16:07:43 IST
exercised on due consideration of various aspects.
37. The "McCarthyism" is antithesis to constitutional goal, chance of
reformation has to be afforded to young offenders in suitable cases, interplay of
reformative theory cannot be ruled out in toto nor can be generally applied but
is one of the factors to be taken into consideration while exercising the power
for cancelling candidature or discharging an employee from service.
3 8 . We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and
reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we
summarise our conclusion thus:
38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to
conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before
or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression
or false mention of required information.
38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in
a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before
filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to
knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the case
may be adopted:
38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been
recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if
disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the
employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false
information by condoning the lapse.
38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial
i n nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the
employee.
38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral
Signature Not Verified
turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not
SAN
a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the
Digitally signed by PARMESHWAR GOPE
Date: 2022.07.19 16:07:43 IST
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.
38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character
verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature,
employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint
the candidate subject to decision of such case.
The Apex Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India
(Civil Appeal No.3574/2022) has held as under :
"13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court
is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the
fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the
employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from
service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression
of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for
t h e employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances
available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and
t he relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate
decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service.
What being noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of
material/false information in a given case does not mean that the
employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service."
Undisputedly, it was not a case where the petitioner suppressed the
fact regarding criminal case against him and resultant acquittal. On the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
contrary, it was disclosed by the petitioner before seeking appointment.
Digitally signed by PARMESHWAR GOPE
Date: 2022.07.19 16:07:43 IST
Therefore, if the impugned orders are tested on the anvil of law laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of Awatar Singh and Pawan
Kumar (supra), it is a case where the authority concerned has failed to
appreciate that it was a case of clean acquittal and apart from that case, the
entire past record of the petitioner was found unblemished therefore, in the
considered view of this Court, the order impugned deserves to be set
aside accordingly, orders dated 09-04-2014 (Annexure P/11) and 27-
07-2017 ( Annexure P/13) are quashed.
The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner
for appointment against the post of Constable within a period of 90 days
from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
The petition stands allowed.
(MANINDER S BHATTI)
JUDGE
PG
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by PARMESHWAR GOPE
Date: 2022.07.19 16:07:43 IST
