Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shivam Singh Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 March, 2022

Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

                                                     W.P. No.24874/2018

                                    1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

                          AT JABALPUR
                            BEFORE
   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                    ON THE 29th OF MARCH, 2022



                WRIT PETITION No. 24874 of 2018

  Between:-
  SHIVAM SINGH THAKUR S/O SHRI BRIJENDRA SINGH THAKUR ,
  AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT VILLAGE SASA
  TEHSIL PATHARIA, DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                     .....PETITIONER

  (SHRI AJAY SHANKAR RAIZADA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
  PETITIONER )

  AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
   SECRETARY HOME (POLICE) DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN,
   BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS
   JAHAGIRABAD BHOPAL, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ADDITIONAL     DIRECTOR      GENERAL      OF     POLICE
   (SELECTION/RECRUITMENT)      POLICE      HEADQUARTERS
   JAHAGIRABAD BHOPAL, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                   .....RESPONDENTS

  (SHRI DHEERAJ TIWARI, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
  RESPONDENTS/STATE )



      This petition coming on for admission this day, the court

passed the following:

                              ORDER

Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner inter alia

praying for the following relief:

7.1 To quash the order 24/09/2018 W.P. No.24874/2018

7.2 To direct respondent to consider the petitioners case in view of Annexure P-8 7.3 To pass any other order or orders and direction or directions which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7.4 To award cost of this petition.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the

petitioner had applied for post of Driver (Constable) in the

recruitment process of the Police Department. The petitioner

qualified the written examination and also passed the driving test

but at the time of document verification, the petitioner has been

held ineligible for being appointed on the post of Driver (Constable)

for the reasons that some criminal cases were registered against him

in which the petitioner has been acquitted but on the basis of

criminal antecedents and also the fact that there is no Honourable

acquittal, the candidature of the petitioner has been found not

suitable for being appointed in police services. Being aggrieved the

present petition has been filed.

3. During character verification it was found that the petitioner

was tried in Crime No.122/16 for the offences punishable under

Sections 147, 294, 323, 324 of IPC. So far as the offence under

Sections 147, 294, 323/149 of IPC are concerned, the petitioner was

acquitted in the aforesaid case on the basis of compromise, whereas W.P. No.24874/2018

for the offence under Section 324/149 of IPC, the petitioner has

been acquitted. Similarly, in Crime No.8/15 for the offences

punishable under Sections 279, 327, 338 of IPC, the petitioner has

also been acquitted vide judgment dt.19.07.2016 on the ground of

compromise.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner having been acquitted of the criminal charges, is entitled

to be issued appointment letter for the post of Driver (Constable).

The respondents have adopted different yardsticks while

considering the case of similarly situated candidates. Such attitude

of the respondents results in lowering down the moral of youth of

the country. In such circumstances, the deeper probe is required to

be done before rejecting the claim of the petitioner, therefore, the

impugned order deserves to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments

of this High Court at Gwalior Bench in W.A. No.1173/2018 (The

State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Raghuveer Gurjar) and in W.P.

No.2688/2019 (Arvind Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &

Ors). He further placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in

Civil Appeal No.(s) 10571/2018 (Mohammad Imran Vs. State of

Maharashtra and others) and in the case of Qamarali Wahid Ali

Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh as reported in AIR 1959 MP 46 to

contend that the departmental authorities had no right to sit in W.P. No.24874/2018

judgment over the decision of the criminal Court, and, therefore, the

order of dismissal was wholly without jurisdiction. He further

submitted that this Court relied upon the aforesaid cases, had

relegated back the matter to the authority to reconsider the same and

pass a reasoned and speaking order.

6. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the

respondents/State opposed the prayer and submitted that the

petitioner was acquitted on the ground of compromise and as per

circular dt.24th July 2018, the offence under Section 149 of IPC

amounts to moral turpitude, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled

for recruited in police department. The petitioner has been acquitted

by giving benefit of doubt. The respondents have already taken into

consideration the fact of his acquittal. Regulation 64 of M.P. Police

Regulation deals with general condition of services. Sub Rule 11 of

Regulation 64 of the M.P. Police Regulation stipulates that "In

private life, he shall set an example of peaceful behaviour and shall

avoid all partisanship". Offence registered against the petitioner

involved moral turpitude, therefore, his case has rightly been

rejected.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on the judgment of

Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Parvez

Khan as reported in (2015) 2 SCC 591, in which it is held that

candidate to be recruited to police service must be worthy of W.P. No.24874/2018

confidence of utmost rectitude and must have impeccable character

and integrity. Person having criminal antecedents would not fit into

said category since even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot

be presumed that he was completely exonerated. Persons likely to

erode credibility of police ought not to enter police force. On facts

held, in absence of any allegations of mala fides against the SP who

was the appointing authority, or any perversity or irrationality in his

decision finding respondent ineligible for compassionate

appointment because of his implication in two criminal cases

impugned judgment directing reconsideration of respondent's case

unsustainable. Refusal by competent authority to recruit respondent

on grounds of his criminal antecedents call for no interference.

8. He further relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case

of Commissioner of Police Vs. Mehar Singh as reported in (2013)

7 SCC 685, in which it is 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 W.P. No.24874/2018

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.

9. Learned counsel further placed reliance on the judgment of

Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India as

reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471, wherein it has been held as under:

W.P. No.24874/2018

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.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

11. On perusal of the impugned order dt.24.09.2018 (Annexure

P/7), it is seen that the respondents have taken into consideration

each and every aspect of the matter and has already passed a

reasoned and speaking order following the directions contained in

the case of Avtar Singh (supra) and given detailed reason for not

appointing the petitioner as such this Court is of the considered

opinion that the respondents did not commit any mistake in

rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, therefore, this Court is W.P. No.24874/2018

not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution of India.