Bhagwat Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3496 MP

                           1                       W.A.No.267/2022


             HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      Writ Appeal No.267/2022
         (Bhagwat Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Gwalior Bench: Dated 11.03.2022
      Shri    Nirmal     Sharma,     learned   counsel   for   the

appellant/petitioner.

      Shri MPS Raghuwanshi, learned Additional Advocate

General for the respondents/State.

With consent heard finally.

The present writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya

Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal)

Adhiniyam, 2005 arising out of the order dated 08.12.2021

passed in Writ Petition No.26996/2021 by learned Single Bench

of this Court, whereby petition filed by the petitioner/appellant

has been dismissed.

2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the

appellant/petitioner that learned Single Bench of this Court did

not consider the correct import of judgment rendered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of

India and others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 and caused

illegality while affirming the impugned order dated 19.08.2020

passed by the Superintendent of Police, District Shivpuri,

whereby appellant has been found unfit for appointment on the

post of police constable.

3. It is further submitted that in case of Avtar Singh (supra),

the Hon'ble Apex Court delineated the principles and it has been

held that irrespective of nature of acquittal, role of an

accused/candidate in a particular set of allegations is to be seen

and here, appellant did not commit any overt act so as to fasten

liability under Sections 336 and 341 of IPC, therefore, his role is

confined to his presence and exhortation.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General for the

respondents/State opposed the prayer while supporting the

impugned order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court

and submitted that no illegality has been caused. Authorities

exercising discretion came to the conclusion that under these

present facts and circumstances of the case, appellant does not

deserves to be retained in the department as police constable. It is

further observed by the Superintendent of Police, District

Shivpuri that his acquittal does not come under clean acquittal,

therefore, he is not befitting to be retained in police department.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents appended thereto.

6. It is the case where appellant is tried for offence under

Sections 294, 336, 341, 506-B of IPC. On the basis of witnesses

turned hostile, acquittal has been recorded in favour of appellant

so far as offence under Sections 294 and 336 of IPC are

concerned. In respect of offence under Sections 341 and 506-B

of IPC, complainant and accused entered into settlement and

matter has been compromised in respect of those set of

allegations pertaining to those offence under Sections 341 and

506-B of IPC.

7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union

of India and others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 delineated the

principles in detail and sufficient discretion has been given to the

departmental authorities to look into the matter of different

exigencies and thereafter, take a call regarding suitability of

candidate if he suffers any criminal trial or registration of offence.

Here in the case in hand, Superintendent of Police, District

Shivpuri considered the fact situation in detail and in logical and

objective manner. Thereafter, ensured passing of impugned order.

8. Learned Single Bench of this Court has considered all the

necessary contours of the controversy in detail and thereafter,

came to the conclusion about role of appellant vis-a-vis

allegations and thereafter, dismissed the petition. When

authorities take a view in a particular manner then scope of

discretion is limited. Learned Single Bench of this Court in its

jurisdiction considered all necessary aspects and thereafter,

reached to the conclusion. In absence of any illegality or

perversity, scope of appeal is constricted further.

9. We are of the considered view that no case for interference

is made out. Therefore, appeal stands dismissed.

                                   (Anand Pathak)                  (Satish Kumar Sharma)
                                      Judge                                Judge
            Rashid


RASHID KHAN
2022.03.12 18:16:05 +05'30'
11.0.8