Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pavan Kumar Bachhale vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 February, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 3 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 10722 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
PAVAN KUMAR BACHHALE S/O LATE SHRI RAMESH
KUMAR BACHHLE, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMLPOYED R/O NEAR GEHLOT
BHAWAN, SHASTRI WARD, WARD NO.-4 BARA
PATTHAR SEONI, DISTT. SEONI (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AJAY SEN - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MP) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
POLICE SELECTION AND RECRUITMENT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
SPECIAL BRANCH SECURITY, POLICE HEAD
QUARTER POLICE HEADQUARTER, BHOPAL, M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE, BALAGHAT
DISTRICT - BALAGHAT (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SOURABH SONI - PANEL LAWYER)
Signature Not Verified
SAN
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
following:
Date: 2023.02.08 17:26:23 IST
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this writ petition, being aggrieved of order dated
22.02.2019, passed by the Superintendent of Police Balaghat, denying him
compassionate appointment on account of death of his brother Shri Ashish
Kumar Bachhale, Constable No.1221, on the ground that two criminal cases
were tried against the petitioner, namely, Crime No.31/2008 under Sections 294,
324, 506-B IPC and Crime No.971/15, under Sections 148, 294, 323, 527, 452,
506-B IPC and since these matters resulted in acquittal on compromise, the
selection Committee rejected the claim of the petitioner to grant him
compassionate appointment.
2. It is submitted that none of the sections pertain to moral turpitude and even
if Section 452 IPC is construed to be an act of moral turpitude, then that
Section was not compromised, but petitioner was acquitted as charge could not
be proved under Section 452 or Section 324/34 IPC.
3. Shri Sourabh Soni, Panel Lawyer for the State, reading his turn submits
that in case of Union of India and others Vs. Methumeda, arising out of
SLP @ No.23856/2014, Supreme Court has observed in para 22 as under :-
"If a person is acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt, from the charge
of an offence involving moral turpitude or because the witnesses turned hostile,
it would not automatically entitle him for the employment, that too in disciplined
force....... Both the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court
have not considered the said legal position, as discussed above in the orders
impugned. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge
of the High Court (of Madhya Pradesh) in Writ Petition No.3897 of 2013 and
Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1090 of 2013 are not sustainable in law......"
Signature Not Verified
SAN
4. Similarly, it is submitted that Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.02.08 17:26:23 IST
Vs. Lavkush Meena in Civil Appeal No.3894/2020, has observed as under
:-
"The decision of Scrutiny Committee must be taken as a final unless it
shows to be malafide. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken
as final unless it is shown to be malafide. The Screening Committee also must
be alive to the importance of the trust repose n it and must examine the
candidate with utmost character."
5. Thus, placing reliance on these judgments, it is pointed out that since
petitioner was involved in an offence involving moral turpitude and, therefore,
on account of compromise, he could not have been given appointment in an
uniform police force.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record,
it is evident that Shri Sourabh Soni points out that Sections 452 and 324/34 are
the Sections of IPC which indicate towards the act of moral turpitude of the
petitioner. However, fact of the matter is that under both the sections, petitioner
was given clean acquittal as charge could not be proved. Therefore, that
acquittal being not on the basis of a compromise and only compromise was
allowed in compoundable Section, judgment in case of Union of India and
others Vs. Methumeda (supra), has no applicability to the facts of the case.
7. As far as judgment of Supreme Court in Lavkush Meena (supra) is
concerned, it is apparent that authorities have failed to apply themselves to the
fact situation, inasmuch as, they have failed to take into consideration a fact that
petitioner was given clean acquittal as far as Sections pertaining to moral
turpitude are concerned and, therefore, that judgment too will not be of any
Signature Not Verified
SAN
assistance to the State, inasmuch as once this Court holds that Scrutiny
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Committee had taken a call without application of mind, then case of Lavkush
Date: 2023.02.08 17:26:23 IST
Meena (supra), will have no applicability to the facts and circumstances.
8. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned order dated
22.02.2019 (Annx.P/7), is quashed. Matter is remitted to the Superintendent of
Police Balaghat to decide the case of the petitioner afresh taking into
consideration a fact that Sections pertaining to moral turpitude have been ones
in which petitioner was given clear acquittal, within sixty days of the receipt of
certified copy of the order.
9. In above terms, writ petition is disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
A.Praj.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.02.08 17:26:23 IST
