Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Dixit vs Madhya Pradesh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam ... on 21 May, 2024
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WP No. 11724 of 2024
(RAVI DIXIT Vs MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA VAN VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS)
Dated : 21-05-2024
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal - Senior Advocate with Shri Aditya Singh Thakur -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission.
By the instant petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated
25.04.2024 (Annexure-P/1) whereby the petitioner has been informed that as per
the conditions of his order of appointment since offence has been registered
against him in Mahila Thana Padav, Gwalior vide FIR/Crime No.289/2022 under
Sections 498-A, 294, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act and charge-sheet has also been filed in the competent
Court, therefore, as per condition No.1 of the order of appointment, after
receiving the report of character verification, he is not found fit to be continued
in service and as such, his appointment order has been cancelled.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though in
the order of appointment dated 06.02.2023 (Annexure-P/6) there is a condition
that if in a police verification report it is found that a candidate is found
unsuitable for government employment, the appointment shall be cancelled
immediately, but that information regarding registration of offence had already
conveyed to the department in police verification form and that fact was very
much before the authority before issuing the appointment order in his favour.
He submits that it is not a case that the petitioner has suppressed this material
fact and it is also not a case in which merely because offence has been
registered, the petitioner can be declared unsuitable for government
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 5/24/2024
7:00:51 PM
2
employment. He submits that in column No.12, he had disclosed this
information before the employer and also submitted that a sister-in-law (bhabhi)
of the petitioner lodged a report in a police station, in which, he was not directly
involved in the crime, but being the brother of the main accused i.e. the husband
of the complainant, he has also been implicated in the offence. The counsel for
the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Division Bench of
Delhi High Court passed in W.P.(C) 5718 of 2023 parties being Vikram
Rahul Vs. Delhi Police & Ors., in which, the Delhi High Court has observed
as under:-
"17. Considering that the petitioner had been placed in Column No. 12 of
charge-sheet and the fact that evidence did not establish his involvement in aforesaid
offences after investigation, he should have been logically considered suitable for
appointment. Merely being named in the FIR cannot be treated as an impediment for
public appointment, unless the involvement is substantiated on investigation, specially
in relation to matrimonial offences.
The Competent Authority as well as the learned Tribunal appear to have
ignored the fact that there is a growing tendency amongst the women to rope in all the
relatives including minors in case an FIR is lodged with reference to matrimonial
disputes. Many of such complaints are eventually either settled between the
families/spouses and are later on stated to have been filed in the heat of the moment
over trivial issues. The abuse of the aforesaid provision has been substantially noticed
though the salutary purpose of the enactment cannot be ignored in any manner.
Merely naming in the FIR does not lead to an inference that the employer can keep in
abeyance the employment of an applicant for an indefinite period, even if the applicant
has been placed in column No. 12 of the charge-sheet and has not been summoned.
18. In the facts and circumstances, the Competent Authority as well as the learned
Tribunal, failed to consider the facts and circumstances in a correct perspective and
were merely swept by the factum of the petitioner being named in the FIR. There is
nothing else on record to reflect that the antecedents of the petitioner disqualify him in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 5/24/2024
7:00:51 PM
3
any manner for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector (Exe) in Delhi Police. It is
difficult to presume that the petitioner would be a threat to the discipline of Police
Force merely on account of registration of the aforesaid FIR wherein he has even not
been summoned.
19. For the foregoing reasons, we are unable to agree with the reasons accorded by
the learned Tribunal declining the relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, we set aside the
order dated September 11, 2020 and December 02, 2020 passed by the
respondents along with the impugned order dated February 20, 2023 passed by the
Tribunal in O.A. No. 45/2021 deferring the consideration of appointment of petitioner
till disposal of FIR No. 234/2018.
Respondents are hereby directed to appoint the petitioner to the concerned
post, subject to his satisfying all other conditions within a period of four weeks from
the passing of this order. Petitioner shall be further entitled to all consequential benefits
including seniority on notional basis, but the payment of salary shall be due from the
date of joining.
20. Petition accordingly stands allowed. Considering the facts and circumstances, no
order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of."
Likewise in a case reported in LiveLaw (SC) 441 parties being Pawan
Kumar Vs. Union of India & Anr. , the Supreme Court has observed as
under:-
"16. The judgment relied upon by the respondent Rajasthan
Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and another v. Anil
Kanwariya (2021) 10 SCC 136 may not be of any assistance for the
reason that it was a case where the respondent employee before
submitting application pursuant to the advertisement inviting applications
was convicted by the competent Court of jurisdiction and this fact was
not disclosed by him while filling his application form and that was the
reason favoured upon the Court while upholding action of the authority
in passing the order of termination which was impugned in the
proceedings. We have already quoted paragraph 38 of the judgment by
a three Judge Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh (supra) and in the
context of the factual background of the present case applied the said
principles. One distinguishing factor, as noticed above, is that the
criminal complaint/FIR in the present case was registered post
submission of the application form. We have also taken into account the
nature of the allegations made in the criminal case and that the matter
was of trivial nature not involving moral turpitude. Further, the
proceedings had ended in a clean acquittal. As is clear from paragraph
38 in Avtar Singh (supra), all matters cannot be put in a straitjacket
and a degree of flexibility and discretion vests with the authorities, must
be exercised with care and caution taking all the facts and circumstances
into consideration, including the nature and type of lapse.
17. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, at the time of attestation
form filled by the appellant, the criminal case was already registered
against him but it may be noticed that at the very threshold, the
complainant filed his affidavit that the complaint on which FIR came to
be registered was due to misunderstanding and he did not want to
pursue his case any further, but still chargesheet came to be filed and on
the first date of hearing, the alleged victim PW.1 did not support case of
the prosecution and thus the order of clean acquittal came to be passed
by the learned Judge of competent jurisdiction by judgment dated 12th
August, 2011.
18. The criminal case indeed was of trivial nature and the nature of
post and nature of duties to be discharged by the recruit has never been
looked into by the competent authority while examining the overall
suitability of the incumbent keeping in view Rule 52 of the Rules 1987 to
become a member of the force. Taking into consideration the exposition
expressed by this Court in Avtar Singh (supra), in our considered view
the order of discharge passed by the competent authority dated 24th
April, 2015 is not sustainable and in sequel thereto the judgment passed
by the Division Bench of High Court of Delhi does not hold good and
deserves to be set aside.
19. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The
judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 17th
November, 2015 and the order of discharge dated 24 th April, 2015
and dated 23rd December, 2021 are hereby quashed and set aside. The
Respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant in service on the post
of Constable on which he was selected pursuant to his participation in
reference to employment notice no.1/2011 dated 27th February, 2011.
We make it clear that the appellant will not be entitled for the arrears of
salary for the period during which he has not served the force and at the
same time he will be entitled for all notional benefits, including pay,
seniority and other consequential benefits, etc. Necessary orders shall
be passed within a period of one month from today. No costs."
Thus, primarily I am also of the opinion that when the post on which the
petitioner was appointed is not of disciplinary force and it is a post of
Accountant and at the same time offence got registered not only against the
petitioner but also against his family members, in which, he was not main
accused, therefore, the decision taken by the respondents cancelling his
appointment does not appear to be proper.
Considering the aforesaid, let notice be issued to the respondents on
payment of process fee within a period of seven working days by RAD mode,
returnable within six weeks.
By way of interim measure, it is directed that the operation of impugned
order dated 25.04.2024 (AnnexureP/1) shall remain stayed and the petitioner
shall be allowed to perform duties on the post on which he was appointed by
virtue of Annexure-P/6, till the next date of hearing.
List in the week commencing 22.07.2024.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
ac/-
