The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Santosh Kumar Baghel
2023 Latest Caselaw 9015 MP

                                                      1
                           IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
                                                CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                      &
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                              ON THE 19 th OF JUNE, 2023
                                             WRIT APPEAL No. 741 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL
                                SECRETARY, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    DIRECTOR     GENERAL     OF     POLICE,
                                JAHANGIRABAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
                                (SELECTION  AND    RECRUITMENT), POLICE
                                HEADQUARTERS, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SEONI, DISTRICT
                                SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          5.    SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SINGRAULI,
                                DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          6.    INSPECTOR    GENERAL OF POLICE, BHOPAL
                                KAVYA    /    SURAKSHA, BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                            .....APPELLANTS
                          (BY SHRI B.D. SINGH - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)

                          AND
                          SANTOSH KUMAR BAGHEL, S/O SHRI MAHESH
                          BAGHEL, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                          SERVICE, R/O JAITPURKALA, POLICE STATION
                          LAKHANWADA, SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                            .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI AYUSH CHOUBEY - ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 6/24/2023
1:42:18 PM
                                                               2
                                This appeal coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the
                          following:
                                                               ORDER

For the reasons assigned, I.A. No.8583 of 2023 - an application for condonation of delay is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. Assailing the order dated 13.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the Writ Petition No.16237 of 2017, the appellants/State are in appeal.

3. The case of the writ petitioner is that he had applied for the post of Constable (Driver) in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the respondents therein in the year 2013. He was declared qualified in second stage for the post

of Constable (Driver) and in pursuance to the option given by the authorities to fill up the preference/choice of posting, the same was done by him. He was allotted posting unit as Constable (Driver) in the office of Superintendent of Police, Singrauli. On 03.08.2013 he visited the office of Superintendent of Police, Singrauli and completed the formalities for his posting. He was denied the posting as he was found involved in a criminal case for offence punishable under Sections 294, 148, 325, 324/149 and 506 (Part-II) of the IPC. He has sworn an affidavit stating that the Criminal Case No.4853/2010 was subjudiced before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Seoni and the decision is awaited and vide order dated 18.12.2013 the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Seoni has acquitted him. As per his information, the judgment of acquittal is not subjected to appeal and the same has attained finality. Vide letter dated 22.02.2014, writ petitioner was asked to appear personally before the Special Branch, Police Headquarters, Bhopal for putting his stand with respect to the police verification. The writ petitioner appeared before the authorities, but he has again been denied the appointment/posting without assigning any reason. Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 6/24/2023 1:42:18 PM

He has applied under the Right to Information Act seeking necessary documents regarding his disqualification, but the same was denied. It is the case of the writ petitioner that as against refusal by respondents to grant him appointment/posting to the post in question, the writ petitioner preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition No.4134 of 2015, which was disposed off by remanding the matter back to the authorities to consider the case of the writ petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471. The Superintendent of Police vide order dated 27.07.2017 has decided the case of the writ petitioner, but the same was not in terms of the directions and the spirit of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra). Therefore, the writ petition was again filed on the ground that once the writ petitioner has honourably been acquitted by the learned trial Court in a criminal case then the authorities ought to have considered the case of the writ petitioner treating him to be honourably acquitted placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Singh Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh & ors., (2015) 2 SCC 377. The writ court allowed the petition considering the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India & Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 532 and directed the authorities to consider the case of the writ

petitioner for appointment against the post of Constable (Driver) within a period of 90 days.

4. The State being aggrieved by the order passed by the writ court has filed the present appeal on the ground that once a decision has been taken by the Screening Committee in the case of the writ petitioner as he was having criminal antecedent and has chosen not to grant appointment to him, even if the writ Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 6/24/2023 1:42:18 PM

petitioner is found to be acquitted of the criminal case, but it is entirely the choice of the employer to appoint the most suitable candidate. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) as well as in the case of Union of India Vs. Methu Meda, (2022) 1 SCC 1. To substantiate its argument, the State has placed heavy reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of Methu Meda (supra) that the employer is having the right to consider the case of appointment of a candidate in a disciplined police force. It is submitted that the candidate must have been of an unimpeachable character and integrity. The decision taken by the Screening Committee must be final unless it is proved that the same is an outcome of mala fides. It is not a case of the writ petitioner that the decision taken by the Committee is an outcome of mala fide. However, the sole consideration by the writ court for direction to consider the case of the writ petitioner for grant of appointment to the post of Constable (Driver) was that he has been acquitted in a criminal case.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein has supported the impugned order stating therein that the writ petitioner has been honourably acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class as the prosecution has totally failed to prove the charges leveled against him. Once it is a case of honourable acquittal and there is no suppression on the part of the writ petitioner regarding pendency of the criminal case coupled with the fact that the allegations leveled against him do not fall under the purview of moral turpitude, the case of the writ petitioner ought to have been considered for grant of appointment to the post of Constable (Driver). The same has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Singh (supra)

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 6/24/2023 1:42:18 PM

and subsequently in the case of Pawan Kumar (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent that mere suppression of a material and false information does not mean that the employee can arbitrarily be discharged/terminated from his services. He has placed heavy reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Singh (supra) stating that the case of the writ petitioner is exactly identical to that of Joginder Singh (supra).

6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

7. The admitted facts of the case are that the writ petitioner was having a criminal case registered against him for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 148, 325, 324/149 and 506 (Part-II) of the IPC. At the time of his recruitment a criminal case was pending. He was acquitted vide judgment of acquittal dated 18.12.2013. The fact remains that, whether he was entitled for grant of appointment to the post of Constable (Driver) or the employer was having a right to examine the case of the writ petitioner. It is a settled proposition of law that a candidate applying for his recruitment in the police force should be of an unimpeachable character and integrity. He shoulders a great responsibility of maintaining law and public order in the society. People repose great faith and confidence in him. He must be worthy of confidence. He must be a person of utmost rectitude. A person having a criminal antecedent does not fit in the category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged in a criminal case or completely exonerated of all the charges, it is the decision of the employer to consider him for grant of appointment finding him fit for a disciplined force. The decision take by the authorities/Screening Committee will be final unless the same is an outcome of mala fide if proved by the candidate. However, there is no such ground regarding malafic action on the part of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 6/24/2023 1:42:18 PM

authorities. It is the case of the writ petitioner that as he has been honourably acquitted, the authorities should have considered him for granting him appointment on the post of Constable (Driver).

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Ors. Vs. Pradeep Kumar and Anr., (2018) 1 SCC 797 placing reliance upon the earlier judgment in the case of Inspector General of Police & Another Vs. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 has held that, 'acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive of the suitability of the candidates on the post concerned. The acquittal or discharge of a person cannot always be inferred that he was falsely involved or he has no criminal antecedent.'

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Methu Meda (supra) has considered the aforesaid proposition and placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh as well as in the case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another Vs. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685 has held as under:-

"17. The law with regard to the effect and consequence of the acquittal, concealment of criminal case on appointments etc. has been settled in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), wherein a three Judge Bench of this Court decided, as thus:

"38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus: "38.1 Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.

38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the Government Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 6/24/2023 1:42:18 PM

orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted :

38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.

38.4.2 Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.

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 3 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. 38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case. 38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a 4 person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.

38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.

38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form. Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 6/24/2023 1:42:18 PM

38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or 5 submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for. 38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.

18. In view of the above, in the facts of the present case, as per paras 38.3, 38.4.3 and 38.5, it is clear that the employer is having right to consider the suitability of the candidate as per government orders/instructions/rules at the time of taking the decision for induction of the candidate in employment."

10. From a perusal of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is apparently clear that the employer is having a right to consider the candidature in terms of the circulars issued by the department from time to time. Mere subsequent acquittal in the criminal case will not automatically entitle the candidate to seek appointment to the post in question. It is for the employer to consider the same. A person having a criminal antecedent whether will fit in the category or not is a discretion of the authority. Even if he is acquitted or discharged in a criminal case or even completely exonerated does not make him entitled to have a right to seek appointment on the post in question. The standing orders have entrusted the task of taking the decision in these matters to the Screening Committee. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is an outcome of mala fides. The aforesaid decision is being taken because the image of police force is tarnished in the recent times. Various instances of police personnel behaving in a wayward manner misusing their powers having public domain and are a matter of great concern to the society at large. The reputation of the police force has taken up beating, therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered that it would need not like to Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 6/24/2023 1:42:18 PM

dilute the importance and efficacy of the mechanism like the Screening Committee to ensure that the persons who are likely to erode its credibility do not enter in the police force. The aforesaid aspect was also considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Methu Meda (supra).

11. The order passed by the writ court does not reflect appreciation of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein could not dispute the aforesaid proposition of law. Under these circumstances the order dated 13.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.16237 of 2017 is unsustainable. The same is hereby set aside. The writ petition is dismissed.

12. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.

                                (RAVI MALIMATH)                                       (VISHAL MISHRA)
                                  CHIEF JUSTICE                                            JUDGE
                          taj




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 6/24/2023
1:42:18 PM