Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 January, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
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 4 th OF JANUARY, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 1900 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
MANOJ KUMAR S/O KANHAIYALAL SAHU, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NILL WARD NO.3
HINDORIA P.S. HINDORIYA DISTRICT DAMOH (M.P.)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ANIL KUMAR YADAV - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF M.P. THRU. PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.)
2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE SAGAR
DISTRICT SAGAR 470001 (M.P.)
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SAGAR DISTRICT
SAGAR 470001 (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
ORDER
Assailing the order dated 26.09.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in
dismissing Writ Petition No.8680 of 2012, the petitioner is in appeal.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 19.01.2009, he applied for the post of
Police Constable in Sagar Zone wherein in Columns No.19 and 20, he did not
disclose his character and antecedents. After facing the recruitment process, the
petitioner was declared as a successful candidate. Before proceeding for
training, he submitted all the relevant documents and also made a declaration
about his acquittal in criminal cases and submitted an affidavit to the aforesaid
effect. Thereafter, owing to the police verification of the petitioner, an order has
been passed on 07.07.2009 whereby his name has been removed from the
select list. The said order was questioned by filing a writ petition being W.P.
No.8739 of 2009 which was disposed off vide order dated 30.10.2009 directing
the respondent No.3 to decide his representation as expeditiously as possible.
The representation was rejected vide order dated 16.02.2010. Being aggrieved,
the petitioner again preferred a writ petition being W.P No.3039 of 2010 which
was also disposed off vide order dated 04.01.2012 directing respondent No.3
to decide his fresh representation. The representation was again considered and
rejected by a detailed order dated 12.04.2012. The petitioner once again
preferred a writ petition being W.P. No.8680 of 2012 which came to be
dismissed vide impugned order dated 26.09.2022. Hence, this appeal.
3. I t is his further case that as the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal
cases registered against him, the authorities should have considered his case for
appointment to the post in question. The writ court has failed to appreciate the
aforesaid aspect of the case and has dismissed the writ petition on the ground
that the fact of suppression itself constitutes a disqualification especially in
uniformed services where elements of integrity and rectitude play an important
role. Reliance was placed in the case of Avtar Singh vs Union of India reported
in (2016) 8 SCC 471 wherein it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the
employer cannot be compelled to grant appointment.
4. The counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated the submissions as were
made before the learned writ court.
5. Per contra, State counsel has vehemently opposed the contentions and
supported the impugned order. It is contended that the writ court has not
committed any error in dismissing the petition. In the earlier round of litigation,
only direction was to reconsider the case of the petitioner. The authorities have
reconsidered the case of the petitioner and passed the impugned order dated
12.04.2012 finding him unfit for the post in question. It is within the domain of
the employer to adjudge the eligibility of a candidate. It is contended that the
petitioner has applied for recruitment on the post of Constable in the Police
Department which is a disciplined force. The parameters for consideration are
entirely different. Mere acquittal in a criminal case cannot be a ground for grant
of appointment, rather it is required to be examined whether he has been
completely exonerated in the case or benefit of doubt has been extended to him.
It is for the screening committee to take a final decision in the matter and the
decision of the screening committee can only be interfered with in a petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of mala fides. No such plea
is taken by the petitioner. Reliance is placed upon the decision in the case of
Avtar Singh (supra) wherein it is held that 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. The learned writ court has considered all these aspects of the matter.
He has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
7. T he admitted facts are that the petitioner was involved in two criminal
cases and in one case which was registered under Section 110 of CrPC. He was
acquitted in both the cases vide judgment dated 03.01.2002 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hatta. The proceedings initiated under Section
110 of CrPC were also dropped. In pursuance to the recruitment process
initiated for the post of Police Constable, the petitioner applied for the same and
he was declared as a successful candidate but at the time of his character
verification, it was found that criminal cases were registered against him,
therefore, the screening committee vide order dated 07.07.2009 declared him
ineligible for the post in question. It is a settled proposition of law that employer
has every right and discretion to consider the case of an employee for
appointment. The employer cannot be compelled to grant appointment to the
post in question, even if the candidate has been acquitted in a criminal case. The
aforesaid aspect has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Avtar Singh (supra) wherein it is categorically held that the employer cannot
be compelled to appoint a particular person even after his acquittal. It is the sole
discretion of the employer to consider or not to consider the candidature of an
employee. The aforesaid analogy is fully applicable in the present case.
8. T he Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Union of India vs
Methu Meda reported in (2022) 1 SCC 1 has elaborately dealt with the aforesaid
proposition and placing reliance upon the judgment rendered in Avtar Singh
(supra) as well as in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi vs Mehar Singh
reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685 has held as under:-
1 6 . The law with regard to the effect and consequence of the
acquittal, concealment of criminal case on appointments, etc. has
been settled in Avtar Singh, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this
Court decided, as thus :
3 8 . We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and
reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:
3 8 .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
orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of
taking the decision.
3 8 . 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 recourses 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 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
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.
3 8 .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.
3 8 . 1 0 . 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
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.
17. In view of the above, in the facts of the present case, as per
paras 38.3, 38.4.3 and 38.5 of Avtar Singh case, 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. Acquittal
on technical ground in respect of the offences of heinous/serious
nature, which is not a clean acquittal, the employer may have a
right to consider all relevant facts available as to the antecedents,
and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the
employee. Even in case, truthful declaration regarding concluded
trial has been made by the employee, still the employer has the
right to consider antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint
the candidate.
18. If we look into the facts of the present case, the instructions of
t h e Home Department dated 1-2-2012, prevalent at the time of
selection and appointment specify that such candidate would not be
considered for recruitment. In Circular No. 2/2010 dated 31-3-
2010, issued by the Office of the Training Sector, National
Industrial Security Academy, Central Industrial Security Force
(Ministry of Home Affairs), it is clarified that if a candidate is found
involved in any criminal case, whether it is finalised or pending, the
candidate may not be allowed to join without further instructions
from the headquarters. After seeking instructions from the
headquarters, the Standing Committee has taken the decision on
15-10-2012 that because of acquittal giving benefit of doubt, the
respondent-writ petitioner was not considered eligible for
appointment in CISF.
19. In the aforesaid fact, guidance can further be taken from the
judgment in State v. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685, in paras 23,
34 & 35, this Court observed, as thus :
"23. A careful perusal of the policy leads us to conclude that the
Screening Committee would be entitled to keep persons involved in
grave cases of moral turpitude out of the police force even if they
are acquitted or discharged if it feels that the acquittal or discharge
is on technical grounds or not honourable. The Screening
Committee will be within its rights to cancel the candidature of a
candidate if it finds that the acquittal is based on some serious flaw
in the conduct of the prosecution case or is the result of material
witnesses turning hostile. It is only experienced officers of the
Screening Committee who will be able to judge whether the
acquitted or discharged candidate is likely to revert to similar
activities in future with more strength and vigour, if appointed, to
the post in a police force. The Screening Committee will have to
consider the nature and extent of such person's involvement in the
crime and his propensity of becoming a cause for worsening the law
and order situation rather than maintaining it. In our opinion, this
policy framed by the Delhi Police does not merit any interference
from this Court as its object appears to be to ensure that only
persons with impeccable character enter the police force.
34. The respondents are trying to draw mileage from the fact that in
their application and/or attestation form they have disclosed their
involvement in a criminal case. We do not see how this fact
i m p ro v e s their case. Disclosure of these facts in the
application/attestation form is an essential requirement. An
aspirant is expected to state these facts honestly. Honesty and
integrity are inbuilt requirements of the police force. The
respondents should not, therefore, expect to score any brownie
points because of this disclosure. Besides, this has no relevance to
the point in issue. It bears repetition to state that while deciding
whether a person against whom a criminal case was registered and
who was later on acquitted or discharged should be appointed to a
post in the police force, what is relevant is the nature of the offence,
the extent of his involvement, whether the acquittal was a clean
acquittal or an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt because the
witnesses turned hostile or because of some serious flaw in the
prosecution, and the propensity of such person to indulge in similar
activities in future. This decision, in our opinion, can only be taken
by the Screening Committee created for that purpose by the Delhi
Police. If the Screening Committee's decision is not mala fide or
actuated by extraneous considerations, then, it cannot be
questioned.
35. The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great
responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the
society. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must be
worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police
f o rce must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must have
impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal
antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or
discharged in the criminal case, that acquittal or discharge order
will have to be examined to see whether he has been completely
exonerated in the case because even a possibility of his taking to
the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force.
The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking
decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee. The decision
of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala
fide. In recent times, the image of the police force is tarnished.
Instances of police personnel behaving in a wayward manner by
misusing power are in public domain and are a matter of concern.
The reputation of the police force has taken a beating. In such a
situation, we would not like to dilute the importance and efficacy of
a mechanism like the Screening Committee created by the Delhi
Police to ensure that persons who are likely to erode its credibility
do not enter the police force. At the same time, the Screening
Committee must be alive to the importance of trust reposed in it and
must treat all candidates with even hand."
20. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear the respondent who wishes to
join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude and have
impeccable character and integrity. A person having a criminal
antecedents would not be fit in this category. The employer is
having right to consider the nature of acquittal or decide until he is
completely exonerated because even a possibility of his taking to
the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force.
Th e Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking
decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee and the
decision of the Committee would be final unless mala fide. In State
(UT of Chandigarh) v. Pradeep Kumar, (2018) 1 SCC 797, this
Court has taken the same view, as reiterated in Mehar Singh. The
same view has again been reiterated by this Court in State v. Raj
Kumar, (2021) 8 SCC 347.
21. As discussed hereinabove, the law is well-settled. 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. The employer is having a right to
consider his candidature in terms of the circulars issued by the
Screening Committee. The mere disclosure of the offences alleged
and the result of the trial is not sufficient. In the said situation, the
employer cannot be compelled to give appointment to the
candidate. 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 [Union of India v. Methu Meda, 2013
SCC OnLine MP 10701] , [Methu Meda v. Union of India, Writ
Petition No. 3897 of 2013, order dated 27-9-2013 (MP)] impugned.
Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge
of the High Court in Methu Meda v. Union of India, Writ Petition
No. 3897 of 2013, order dated 27-9-2013 (MP) and the Division
Bench in Union of India v. Methu Meda, 2013 SCC OnLine MP
10701 are not sustainable in law, as discussed hereinabove.
9. In Methu Meda's case (supra), the order disqualifying the petitioner was
put to challenge by filing a writ petition before the High Court and the writ
petition was allowed. The same was put to challenge by filing a writ appeal but
it was dismissed which led to filing of an SLP through the department. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has arrived at a conclusion that it is the sole discretion
of the authorities and within the domain of the employer to consider the case of
the candidate for grant of appointment on the post in question and the employer
cannot be compelled under any circumstances to grant appointment to a
particular candidate. The mere disclosure of the offences alleged and the result
of the trial is not sufficient. The screening committee has to consider all the
relevant factors including the extent of involvement, criminal antecedents,
acquittal in a criminal case etc. The same could not have been questioned
except on the ground of mala fides. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Methu Meda (supra) in paragraph 21 has considered the aforesaid aspect of the
case.
10. The law with respect to consideration of the case of an employee after
acquittal in a criminal case has been settled in Avtar Singh's case (supra) which
still holds the field. Under these circumstances, the learned writ court has not
committed any error in dismissing the writ petition. Hence, no relief can be
extended to the appellant.
11. Consequently, the writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
VV
