Madhya Pradesh High Court
Union Of India vs Arvind Gurjar (Constable Gd No ... on 11 February, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 2391 of 2024
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Vs.
ARVIND GURJAR & ANR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCE:
Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar - Deputy Solicitor General of
India for the appellants.
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri Ankur Mody - Additional Advocate General for respondent
No.2/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 11th Day of February, 2025)
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
1. The present appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005
is preferred by the appellant/respondent being crestfallen by the
order dated 22-11-2023 (uploaded on 03-07-2024) passed by
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.20237 of 2019 whereby the
writ petition filed by the petitioner/respondent No.1 (hereinafter
referred to as "the petitioner") has been allowed.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that in pursuance to an
advertisement issued by the respondents in the year 2017, petitioner
applied for the post of Constable in the establishment of appellant
No.2. He appeared in the examination and declared as a select
candidate vide order dated 05-05-2017. The appointment order has
been issued and he has been posted and assigned No.170604295 and
in pursuance thereof, petitioner joined his services. Thereafter, the
process in relation to character verification took place and in that
process it was found that the petitioner suppressed the fact in
relation to registration of FIR against him at crime No.661/2013 for
offence under Sections 147, 148, 294, 452, 323, 324, 149, 326, 506-
B and 34 of IPC. Therefore, the candidature of petitioner to the post
of Constable in CISF has been rejected by the appellants and he has
been declared unfit for the services of appellants department.
Aggrieved by the rejection of candidature, petitioner preferred writ
petition which was allowed by learned Single Judge, therefore,
appellants are before this Court.
3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that
petitioner has given incomplete and misleading information in the
character verification form as he did not mention the details of FIR
registered against him. It is further submitted that since CISF is a
disciplined uniform force, therefore, any person with dubious
background may not be suitable in the department as a constable
who is required to be assigned the duties of esteemed institutions
and security of VIPs of this country. The screening committee after
taking into consideration all the facts and evidence of the case,
found the petitioner unfit for the services of respondents
department. The issue of territorial jurisdiction is also raised by the
appellants on the ground that since the order of termination of
petitioner has been passed at Ramgarh (Jharkhand), therefore, this
Court does not have the jurisdiction. Thus, prayed for setting aside
the order passed by learned Writ Court.
4. Per contra, while supporting the order passed by learned Writ
Court, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner belongs to rural area and was not so much educated about
the legal aspects, therefore, since he was acquitted by the trial Court
under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. in the year 2014 and at the time of
filling up the form of character verification in 2017, no other case
was pending against him, therefore, under bona fide mistake he did
not disclose the fact of registration of FIR against him at Crime
No.661 of 2013. It is further submitted that in trial also, petitioner
was acquitted from all the charges as no evidence was found against
the petitioner at the stage of Section 232 of Cr.P.C. and prosecution
witnesses also did not depose against him, therefore on merits of the
case, petitioner was given clean acquittal. Merely registration of
case does not prove guilt of the person in any of the offence
particularly when the locality in which petitioner resides i.e. Morena
where false implication and over implication is always taken note of
by the Courts.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India
and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 and submits that the said judgment
talks about the objective consideration and once no objective
consideration is shown by the departmental authority then it is for
the Constitutional Court to invoke its jurisdiction for judicial
review. He also relied upon the judgments of Division Bench passed
in W.A.No.1954/2019 (Devendra Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P.
and Others) dated 01-05-2020 as well as in W.A.No.55/2023
(Monu Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) dated 24-07-2024 wherein
the issue in relation to failure of character verification has been
dealt with and the Court directed the respondents to consider the
case of petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/State opposed the prayer made
by learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.1 and submits
that the case registered against the petitioner involves element of
Moral Turpitude and his entitlement or dis-entitlement for induction
in the government service will be subject to the nature of offence of
the case. It is further contended that mere acquittal from serious
charges would not confer any right to the petitioner as it is the
prerogative of the employer who would check the suitability of the
candidate for the job.
7. Heard.
8. This is a case where the appellants are challenging the order passed
by learned Writ Court whereby while setting aside the order of
termination of services of petitioner, matter was remanded back to
the competent authority to take fresh call upon the suitability of the
petitioner. In the case in hand, the petitioner who was duly selected
for the post of Constable in the establishment of appellant No.2, has
been denied the employment on the basis of suppression of fact in
relation to registration of case against him at crime No.661/2013 for
offence under Sections 147, 148, 294, 452, 323, 324, 149, 326, 506-
B and 34 of IPC.
9. In the aforesaid case, parties first, compromised the matter for
offence under Sections 148, 294, 323/149, 506 part II of IPC and for
rest of the offences under Sections 326/149, 324/149 and 452 of
IPC, trial was initiated but at the stage of Section 232 of Cr.P.C.
since the trial Court did not find any evidence against the petitioner,
therefore, petitioner has been acquitted from all the charges.
10. According to the guidelines of Home Department, the offence under
Section 326 of IPC falls under moral turpitude but if the evidence of
the case in which petitioner was tried as an accused is taken into
consideration, then it would be clear that since the trial Court did
not find any evidence against the petitioner, therefore, petitioner has
been acquitted from all the charges under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. In
a criminal case, role of each accused is taken into consideration and
from that perspective, petitioner has not played any active role.
11. Evidently, the case is of acquittal at the stage of Section 232 of
Cr.P.C. meaning thereby prosecution had no case to proceed further
and therefore, in absence of any evidence, acquittal was recorded in
favour of the petitioner. This is an acquittal which can be placed at
higher pedestal. Therefore, it impliedly the case falls under clause
38.4 of the case of Avtar Singh (supra).
12. Mere levelling of allegation does not prove guilt of any of the
accused person, for that, the allegations should be supported with
evidence. Here, in the present case, FIR itself indicates that
petitioner did not play active role and since there was no evidence
available on record against the petitioner even to conduct trial,
therefore, trial Court acquitted the petitioner from all the charges.
13. In fact, Genesis of Crime is also to be seen while taking decision
over fate of an employee. Here, genesis of crime (altercation took
place between the parties on the basis of enmity) does not indicate
wicked mind and mens rea to commit crime prima facie.
14. So far as the contention of the appellants in relation to clean
acquittal is concerned, there is no concept of clean acquittal in
Cr.P.C. According to Cr.P.C. acquittal is acquittal. In other words,
where there is no element of doubt in the mind of trial Judge, the
acquittal is recorded in favour of accused person. Appellants cannot
deny the employment to the petitioner merely on the ground that he
was tried for some offences.
15. Application of any law is always meant for the prevailing time,
social conditions and mores as well as surroundings in which it
operates. In the jurisdiction of this Court, many cases are registered
at the instance of complainant with overtone of false implication or
over implication. Many a times, a person who is serving in a
government job is implicated as an accused and in many cases, a
candidate preparing for government job or aspirant, is also roped in
as an accused so as to frustrate his future prospects. The Police
Authorities which operate at ground level, are well versed with the
ground reality and decipher each and every case with precaution and
care because future prospects of a candidate to enter into
government job ought not lie at the mercy of the complainant who
may lodge false complaint at any time against any person.
16. If the authorities are swayed by the thought of mere registration of
offence or mere conduct of the trial or acquittal or clean acquittal or
otherwise then they may be ignoring the 'LIFE' into that 'FILE
because each 'FILE' has its own 'LIFE'. Here in the present case,
petitioner faced trial in one case in which he was acquitted by the
trial Court at the stage of Section 232 of Cr.P.C. When petitioner
came out acquitted and his innocence stood vindicated then
department should not take such pedantic and hyper-technical view
particularly when no specific role is assigned to the petitioner in the
FIR in relation to causing the offence having the trappings of moral
turpitude.
17. This Court in W.A. No.1954/2019 (Devendra Singh Gurjar Vs.
State of M.P. and Others) decided on 01-05-2020 as well as in
W.A.No.55/2023 (Monu Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) dated
24-07-2024 discussed this aspect in detail and has considered
impact of acquittal under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. In paragraphs 6 to
11 of the said order, detail discussion was made about various
contours of the subject matter. In the conspectus of facts and
circumstances of the case, learned Writ Court did not err in
remanding the matter for re-consideration by the concerned
authority and therefore, the appeal preferred by the appellants has
no merits.
18. In the considered opinion of this Court, no manifest illegality or
palpable perversity is reflected in the impugned order passed by
learned Writ Court in Writ Petition No.20237/2019. Thus, no case
for interference is made out. The order passed by learned Writ Court
is hereby affirmed.
19. Resultantly, the appeal sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK) (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
Anil* JUDGE JUDGE
ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
2025.02.13
11:08:57
+05'30'
