Ramlakhan Sharma vs The Director General Home Guard
2023 Latest Caselaw 18130 MP

                                                           1
                           IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                             ON THE 31 st OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 6049 of 2016

                          BETWEEN:-
                          RAMLAKHAN SHARMA S/O SHRI RAMSIYA SHARMA,
                          AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, SAINIK NO.323 IN DISTRICT
                          COMAMNDENT HOME GUARD SATNA R/O VILL.
                          PURAINIHA P.S. KOLGAWAN TAH. AND DIST. SATNA
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI SACHIN SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    THE DIRECTOR GENERAL HOME GUARD
                                JABALPUR JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    THE SENIOR STAFF OFFICER, HOME GUARD,
                                J A B A L P U R DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          3.    THE DIVISIONAL COMMANDANT, HOME GUARD,
                                REWA DIVISION REWA, (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    THE DIST. COMMANDANT, HOME GUARD, SATNA
                                SATNA, (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH - PANEL LAWYER)

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

This is a petition assailing the order dated 1.12.2015, contained in Annexure P/6.

2. Counsel contends that the petitioner herein was appointed vide order Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Signing time: 11/2/2023 12:11:21 PM

dated 1.11.1990 against the post of Sainik. As a criminal case against the petitioner was registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code by Police Station, Kotwali, Kolgawan, District Satna, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 26.9.2009 (Annexure P/1). Later on, vide order dated 11.10.2012 the petitioner was terminated. The criminal case which was registered against the petitioner was ultimately resulted in acquittal vide judgment dated 25.04.2014 (Annexure P-2). After acquittal of the petitioner, the petitioner approached the respondents and sought reinstatement in employment. The said application of the petitioner was forwarded to the Senior Staff Officer, Home Guard. The said application of the petitioner has

been rejected vide order dated 1.12.2015 (Annexure P/6), which is being impugned in the present petition.

3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that application/representation of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner since was given benefit of doubt by the Court while acquitting the petitioner; therefore, the petitioner cannot be reinstated as an offence under Section 302 I.P.C involves moral turpitude. It is contended by the counsel for petitioner that the Authority has failed to take into consideration the paragraphs 45 and 46 of the judgment of acquittal and the Authority while only referring paragraph 47 of the judgment of acquittal has passed the impugned order. The counsel while placing reliance on the decision of Apex Court in Deputy Inspector General of Police and another v. S. Samuthiram [(2013) 1 SCC 598] submits that the impugned order dated 1.12.2015 (Annexure P-6) deserves to be set aside.

4. Per contra counsel for respondents submits that the order impugned

Signature Not Verified requires no interference as apparently the judgment of acquittal reflects that the Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Signing time: 11/2/2023 12:11:21 PM

petitioner was given benefit of doubt and, therefore, the same cannot be brought within the ambit of clean or honourable acquittal and thus the petitioner was not entitled to be reinstated. It is contended by the counsel that the Apex Court in the case of Commandant of Police v. Mehar Singh [(2013) 7 SCC 685] has considered the aspect where the antecedent of a person seeking induction in disciplined force are taken into consideration and, therefore, the Apex Court has held that it is the prerogative of the employer to consider the candidature taking into consideration the antecedent of a candidate. In the present case against the petitioner a criminal case was registered and later on he was acquitted while giving benefit of doubt; therefore, no interference is warranted.

5. No other point was argued or pressed by the parties.

6. Heard the submissions and perused the record.

7. A perusal of the record reflects that the services of the petitioner as a Sanik were terminated as a Criminal Case was registered against the petitioner under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The petitioner has been acquitted vide judgment of acquittal dated 25.4.2014 (Annexure P/2). The Authority while dealing with the representation of the petitioner, rejected the same while observing that in paragraph 47 of the judgment, the Trial Court has observed that the petitioner is acquitted while giving benefit of doubt.

Paragraphs 45 and 46 of the judgment of the Trial Court reflect that the Court while dealing with issue No. 'A' concluded that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the charges were not proved.

8. Accordingly, in the considered view of this Court, the respondents are required to reconsider the representation of the petitioner while taking into Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Signing time: 11/2/2023 12:11:21 PM

consideration the findings of the Trial Court in paragraphs 45, 46 and 47 of the judgment.

9. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 1.12.2015 (Annexure P-6) stands quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondents to take a decision afresh as regards the petitioner's representation as contained in Annexure P-3 within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order while keeping in view the law laid down by Apex Court in Mehar Singh (supra).

(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE vivek

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Signing time: 11/2/2023 12:11:21 PM