Madhya Pradesh High Court
Uday Bhan Singh Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 June, 2023
Author: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 19th OF JUNE, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 30093 of 2022
Between:-
UDAY BHAN SINGH GURJAR S/O SHRI RAM
CHARAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: EX SUB INSPECTOR
(CURRENTLY CONSTABLE IN TRANSPORT
DEPARTMENT) R/O SARAY KA PURA POST
NAYAKPURA DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI TAPENDRA SHARMA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT
(POLICE), VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE
HEADQUARTERS BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
(SELECTION/RECRUITMENT) POLICE
HEADQUARTERS BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI M.S. JADON - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
"(1) That, ANNEXURE P-1 may kindly be set aside
the impugned order dated 08-03-2022.
(2) That, the respondent may kindly be directed to
appoint the petitioner in pursuance to selection on the
post of sub-inspector with all consequential benefits.
(3) Any other suitable further orders may kindly be
passed in the interest of justice. Cost may also kindly
be awarded."
2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner being selected for the post of Sub Inspector (Police) and
while granting appointment, the Scrutiny Committee scrutinized the
criminal antecedents of the petitioner and found that petitioner bears
criminal record of four cases particulars of which are given in the
impugned order as under:
i. vijk/k dz-&17@02 /kkjk & 294] 323] 341] 34 Hkknfo dk izdj.k
iathc) gqvk ftlesa ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 27-06-2002 dks jkthukek
ds vk/kkj ij nks"keqDr fd;k x;k gSA
ii. vijk/k dz-&53@06 /kkjk 294] 323] 336] 34 Hkknfo dk izdj.k iathc)
fd;k x;k] ftlesa ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 29-04-2008 dks jkthukek ds
vk/kkj ij ,oa /kkjk 336 esa lk{; ds vHkko esa nks"keqDr fd;k x;k gSA
iii. vijk/k dz-&111@07 /kkjk 323] 325] 504 Hkknfo btkQk /kkjk 326 dk
izdj.k iathc) gqvk] ftlesa ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 13-05-2009 dks
/kkjk 323, 504 Hkknfo esa jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij ,oa /kkjk 326 Hkknfo esa lansg
ds ykHk ds vk/kkj ij nks"keqDr fd;k x;k gSA
iv. vijk/k dz-&155@10 /kkjk 147, 148, 149, 307 Hkknfo ds izdj.k esa
vkidks Ldwy es gksus ds dkj.k bl vijk/k ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k gSA
3. Therefore, writ petition was filed vide No.5388/2013 which was
disposed of vide order dated 21-06-2017 for consideration of the case
of petitioner in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case
of Avatar Singh Vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471.
Matter was considered and thereafter vide order dated 21-09-2017
same stood rejected. This precipitated filing of writ petition
No.23425/2017 in which vide order dated 03-01-2022 matter was
again remanded back to the competent authority for consideration.
Now again impugned order dated 08-03-2022 has been passed in
which case of petitioner found to be unfit for job. Therefore, this
petition has been filed.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner
although faced four cases as referred above but two cases were of
minor denomination like offence under Section 294, 323 and 341 of
IPC, third of Section 325 and 326 of IPC but for Section 323 and 504
of IPC case was dismissed on the basis of compounding and regarding
offence under Section 326 benefit of doubt was given. For the case
under Section 307 of IPC Khatma Report was filed in favour of the
petitioner therefore, petitioner was not tried for the said offence.
5. Once cases registered against the petitioner stood concluded then
approach of authority in passing of the impugned order is arbitrary
and illegal.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents-State supported the impugned
order and submitted that petitioner has criminal record of four cases
and they were duly considered by the authorities. It constitutes moral
turpitude therefore, petition deserves dismissal.
7. Heard.
8. This is a case where petitioner is seeking setting aside of the order
dated 08-03-2022 and seeking command by way of writ of mandamus
to the police authority to consider his case for appointment of the post
of Sub Inspector. From perusal of the impugned order and contents of
allegations against him it appears that petitioner has tainted criminal
background. Four cases were registered against him. Two of them for
offence under Section 323, 336 and 341 of IPC but case vide Crime
No.111/2007 is in respect of Section 326 of IPC and case vide Crime
No.155/2010 is also in respect of Section 307 of IPC. Said allegations
are serious in nature. Even if petitioner was acquitted from the said
charges on the basis of settlement between the parties and resultantly
matter got compounded but nonetheless it does not wash out the
discussion as surfaced in the impugned order.
9. Streak of violent acts is apparently available on record which
disentitles him granting appointment as such. Authority has rightly
considered the cases registered against him and different legal
propositions as advanced by the petitioner before the departmental
authority.
10. After considering all contours of the allegations involving moral
turpitude and violent nature of petitioner, it appears that authority
does not cause any illegality and arbitrariness in rejecting the claim of
petitioner. Therefore, impugned order deserves to be affirmed. In the
case of Avatar Singh (supra), the Apex Court has delineated the
propositions for consideration of such type of employees. Discretion
lies in the departmental authority in considering the fact situation of
such type of cases. Once the departmental authority reached to a
conclusion then it does not require any interference on flimsy pretext
here and there.
11. Resultantly, the petition preferred by the petitioner stands dismissed.
(Anand Pathak)
Judge
Anil*
ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
2023.06.20
10:44:39
+05'30'
