Anil Prasad Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 14068 MP

                                                           1
                          IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                              ON THE 28 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                           WRIT PETITION No. 10057 of 2019

                         BETWEEN:-
                         ANIL PRASAD CHOUDHARY S/O SHRI ROHNI PRASAD
                         CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RANJHI NAI
                         BASTI   HANUMAN   NAGAR,   RANJHI  (MADHYA
                         PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                         (BY SHRI AJAY SHANKAR RAIZADA - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. ITS
                               PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPT. VALLABH
                               BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE                 POLICE
                               H E A D Q U A R T E R S JAHAGIRABAD        BHOPAL
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
                               (SELECTION/RECRUITMENT)        POLICE
                               HEAD QUARTER S DISTT. BHOPAL (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         4.    SUPERINTENDANT            OF   POLICE   POLICE
                               H E A D Q U A R T E R S NARSINGHPUR   (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI B.S. KUSHWAHA - PANEL LAWYER)

                               This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                         following:
                                                            ORDER

This petition has been filed by the petitioner while praying for following

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 9/1/2023 2:28:48 PM

reliefs:-

(i) To quash the order 15.03.2019 and communication dated 04.04.2019.

(ii) To direct respondents to give appointment to the petitioner in furtherance of his selection.

(iii) 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.

(iv) To award cost of this petition.

2. The facts as detailed in the petition reflect that the present petitioner was selected as Police Constable and was allotted posting in Unit Narsinghpur. The petitioner while seeking appointment submitted the application form and also disclosed the fact that he was confronted with a prosecution

under Sections 294, 324, 327 and 506-II and read with Section 34 of IPC and ultimately the petitioner was acquitted vide judgement of acquittal dated 21.11.2015. The petitioner, after selection, was called by the Scrutiny Committee and ultimately vide order dated 20.10.2018 (Annexure P/7), was informed that he was declared ineligible for appointment. The said order dated 20.10.2018 was assailed by the petitioner by filing a petition before this Court vide W.P.No.28492/2018. This Court disposed of the said petition by passing an order dated 29.01.2019 (Annexure P/8) directing the respondents to take decision on petitioner's grievance in the light of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Imran vs. State of Maharashtra and Others passed in Civil Appeal No.10571/2018. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.28492/2018 dated 29.01.2019, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 04.04.2019 (Annexure P/10) along with the decision dated 15.03.2019 (Annexure P/11). Thus, assailing the communication dated 04.04.2019 (Annexure P/10) and order dated 15.03.2019 (Annexure P/11), this petition is filed by the petitioner.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 9/1/2023 2:28:48 PM

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the present case, the petitioner with clean hands sought employment and there was no suppression whatsoever by the petitioner in the application form. The petitioner while acting bonafidely disclosed the factum of registration of a criminal case against him and ensued acquittal. Yet, the respondents have proceeded to pass the impugned order. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that once petitioner has already been acquitted, there was no occasion with the respondents to declare the petitioner ineligible. It is further contended by the counsel that there is failure on the part of the respondents to consider the effect of judgment of acquittal. It is also contended by the counsel that the respondents have ventured upon to reject the petitioner's claim while holding that the judgment of the acquittal is based on compromise, therefore, the same cannot be brought within the ambit of "honorable or clear acquittal". In support of his contention, counsel while placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Mohammed Imran (supra) and Pramod Singh Kirar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 8934-8935 of 2022 dated 02.12.2022 and also the decision of this Court in W.P.No.11357/2019 (Prempal Singh vs. The State of M.P. and Others) dated 10.08.2023, submits that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed.

4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent/State submits that the

present petition filed by the petitioner is grossly misconceived. The petitioner's grievance has already been considered by the respondents while passing a detailed order dated 15.03.2019 (Annexure P/11). The employer is best suited to adjudge the eligibility of a candidate. It is contended by the counsel that while seeking induction in the disciplined force, the candidate's character is an aspect

Signature Not Verified which is of pivotal consideration. Thus, the respondents while considering the Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 9/1/2023 2:28:48 PM

petitioner's prosecution and judgment of acquittal, has concluded that the petitioner is not fit to be retained in police force and has accordingly, rejected the same and thus submits that the impugned order requires no interference inasmuch as, the Authority has taken recourse to judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471.

5. Parties have not argued or pressed any other points.

6. Heard the rival submission of both the parties and perused the record.

7. A perusal of the record reflects that this is second round of litigation. Earlier as well, the petitioner approached this Court and this Court directed the respondents to take a decision on petitioner's representation in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Imran (supra). Thereafter, the Authority considered the case of the petitioner and has passed the impugned order dated 15.03.2019 (Annexure P/11) which has been communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 04.04.2019 (Annexure P/10).

8. A perusal of the order passed by the Authority reflects that the case of the petitioner was considered. The Authority taking into consideration the effect of petitioner's prosecution and also ensued acquittal, decided that the petitioner is not fit to be retained in disciplined force. The Authority while taking the said decision has also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Imran (supra). The Authority has also taken into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra). There is a detailed analysis by the employer in paragraphs 3 to 7 of the said order and the employer in his own wisdom has decided that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 9/1/2023 2:28:48 PM

petitioner is not fit to be retained in service.

9. The Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) has held in paragraph 38.05 as under:-

"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. It is also important to take note of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another v. Mehar Singh - (2013) 7 SCC 685 wherein it has been held by the Apex Court in Paragraphs 26 and 35 as under:-

"26. In light of the above, we are of the opinion that since the purpose of the departmental proceedings is to keep persons, who are guilty of serious misconduct or dereliction of duty or who are guilty of grave cases of moral turpitude, out of the department, if found necessary, because they pollute the department, surely the above principles will apply with more vigour at the point of entry of a person in the police department i.e. at the time of recruitment. If it is found by the Screening Committee that the person against whom a serious case involving moral turpitude is registered is discharged on technical grounds or is acquitted of the same charge but the acquittal is not honourable, the Screening Committee would be entitled to cancel his candidature. Stricter norms need to be applied while appointing persons in a disciplinary force because public interest is involved in it."

                                              *              *              *               *


Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 9/1/2023
2:28:48 PM

35. 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 the trust reposed in it and must treat all candidates with an even hand."

11. In terms of the aforesaid decision, it is no more a debatable issue that despite there being a judgment of acquittal, the employer still is free to take into consideration the suitability of the candidate and the employer is required to take a decision in objective manner.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 9/1/2023 2:28:48 PM

12. In the considered view of the this Court, the respondents have taken a decision which contains elaborate cogent reasons. It is a case where the decision has been taken in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Imran (supra) as well all Avtar Singh (supra). The reliance by the petitioner on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.11357/2019 (Prempal Singh vs. The State of M.P. and Others) dated 10.08.2023 , is misplaced inasmuch as, in that case, the impugned decision was not taken in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court detailed hereinabove and therefore, this Court remitted back the matter to the respondents to take a decision afresh.

13. However, in the case in hand, such an eventuality does not exist. In view of the impugned order dated 15.03.2019 (Annexure P/11), the employer has exercised the discretion being best suited to adjudge the eligibility of the petitioner. As the impugned order is well reasoned, this Court does not find any infirmity and perversity in the same.

14. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE sp

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 9/1/2023 2:28:48 PM