Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkesh Dangi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 January, 2023
Author: Rohit Arya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 9 th OF JANUARY, 2023
WRIT APPEAL No. 1368 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
RAMKESH DANGI S/O SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH DANGI,
AGED 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED R/O
VILLAGE MAWAI POST VIKAR TEHSIL DATIA,
DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME,
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE
HEADQUARTERS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
(RECRUITMENT) BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANKUR MODY - ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)
This appeal coming on for orders this day, JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA
passed the following:
ORDER
This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 01.08.2022
passed in Writ Petition No. 5156/2017 and also the order dated 06.09.2022
passed in Review Petition No. 967/2022.
On notice, the respondent-State has filed reply.
Brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are in narrow compass.
The appellant was one of the candidates for appointment to the post of
Constable. He was selected. However, during character verification it was
found that the appellant was one of the accused persons in Special Sessions
Trial No. 13/2013 and was tried for offences under Sections 323, 294 and 506
of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST Act, wherein learned Special Judge
while passing the judgment dated 08.07.2016 (Annexure P/4 of writ petition)
had acquitted the appellant of the charges albeit on the strength of the
compromise entered between the complainant and accused persons. The
Special Judge in para 15 of the judgment has observed that as a matter of fact
the presence of the present appellant at the place of the incident was not found
to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, plea of alibi raised by the
appellant during trial has been accepted giving him benefit of doubt.
It appears that the respondents did not find the candidature of the
appellant proper for being inducted in the disciplined police force for the reason
of being tried for the aforesaid offence. As a result, his candidature was rejected
and appointment order was not issued.
While taking exception to the impugned action the appellant preferred
Writ Petition No. 5156/2017. Learned Single Judge after detailed discussion has
observed in para 11 of the impugned order that the competent authority while
passing the order dated 31.05.2017 (impugned in the writ petition) did not
consider important aspect of the matter and resultantly quashed the said order.
However, in para 12 of the impugned order learned Single Judge has extended
liberty to respondents to take into consideration the yardsticks/criteria
propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments cited in the
context of ascertaining suitability of a candidate who has been subjected to a
criminal charge, albeit acquitted. However, leaned Single Judge has further
observed that the respondents shall reconsider the plea of alibi raised by the
appellant and upheld by the Special Judge during trial.
Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has no objection
if the principle of law reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of
judgment referred to in para 12 of the impugned order is applied in the case of
the appellant while ascertaining his suitability for appointment as Constable but
he takes strong exception to the concluding lines of para 12 whereunder the
respondents have also been extended the liberty to reexamine the question of
presence of the appellant on spot. In other words, learned Single Judge has
reopened the finding of the Special Judge as recorded in para 12 of the
judgment dated 08.07.2016. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the
said approach is wholly unwarranted, more so when the judgment rendered in
Special Sessions Trial No. 13/2014 has already attained finality.
Per Contra, Shri Mody, learned Additional Advocate General for the
respondent/State fairly submits that the aforesaid observation in last few lines of
para 12 of the impugned order related to plea of alibi of the appellant upheld by
the Special Judge may not be a question of enquiry, however no fault can be
found with the direction as regards ascertaining the suitability of the appellant in
the light of the judgments cited in the said paragraph.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find substantial force in
the submission of Shri Prashant Sharma. Accordingly, we modify the order
dated 01.08.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.
5156/2017 with the order that the direction contained in last few lines in para 12
of the impugned order related to plea of alibi shall not be subject matter of
enquiry in the teeth of the finding in that behalf in para 15 of the judgment dated
08.07.2016 rendered by Special Court in Special Sessions Trial No.13/2013
(Annexure P/4 of writ petition).
With the aforesaid, writ appeal stands disposed of.
(ROHIT ARYA) (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
yog
YOGESH
VERMA
2023.01.09
VALSALA
VASUDEVAN
2018.10.26
15:14:29 -07'00'
17:44:27
+05'30'
