Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shailendra Singh Raghuvanshi vs The State Of M.P. on 20 January, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1018
1 WP-13787-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 20th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 13787 of 2020
SHAILENDRA SINGH RAGHUVANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shivendra Singh Raghuvanshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dilip Awasthi, Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
Both the parties heard finally.
2. Petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:-
"(i) Quashing the impugned order dated 27/08/2020
(Annexure P-1).
(ii) Directing respondents follow the rules which are in
consonance with the principle of natural Justice as mentioned in
the Rules 2016 Rule no 25 (A).
(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court finds
appropriate in the matter.
(iv) Costs."
3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner has served Home Guard
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1018
2 WP-13787-2020
Sainik No.260 in District Shivpuri. He was accused in criminal case
No.45/1993 registered under Sections 541, 294, 323, 341, 34 of IPC,
No.81/1994 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 of IPC and
No.103/2014 (Crime No.1/2014) registered under Sections 456, 354 of IPC,
No.941/2017 (Crime No.133/2017) registered under Sections 456, 354 of
IPC. He has been terminated by respondent No. 3 vide order dated
09.12.2019 (Annexure P-5). Thereafter, he has been reinstated in service but
again vide order dated 27.08.2020, his services have been terminated without
giving any opportunity of hearing as per Rule 25(A) of M.P. Home Guards
Act, 1947 and M.P. Home Guards Rules, 2016 (in short "Rules, 2016"),
principles of natural justice were also violated. . Being aggrieved by the
aforesaid, petitioner has preferred this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the prayer and
prays for its rejection by submitting in their reply that in exercise of power
conferred under Rule 25(A) of the Rules, 2016, services of the petitioner
have been put to an end. The order is legal and in consonance with the Rules.
Petitioner was having criminal record, therefore, he is not entitled to get
benefit of service in a disciplined force. The petitioner was liable to intimate
the respondent about criminal cases registered against him. Offence under
Section 354 of IPC involves the sexual harassment of a woman, which is
offence of moral turpitude. This petition is also not maintainable as the
petitioner has alternative remedy to file an appeal before the Appellate
Authority. Therefore, this petition is devoid of substance and deserves to be
dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1018
3 WP-13787-2020
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended in his rejoinder
that petitioner has already given the information to District Commandant
Office on 10.09.2017 within time that he has been finally acquitted in such
offence. He has also filed copy of receipt. In the instant matter, principle of
natural justice has been violated, therefore, the question of alternative
remedy does not arise.
6. Both the parties heard at length and perused the entire record with
due care.
7. Petitioner relied upon the order dated 04.04.2018 passed by
coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Neelesh Shukla Vs. State of
M.P. and others [W.P. No.8455/2017], judgment dated 26.03.2008 passed by
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sohan Singh and others Vs. State
of M.P. and others [(2008) 3 MPLJ 365] and judgment passed by Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Nagayach Vs. State of M.P. and
others [2012 RN 252].
8. It is a case where the petitioner, who is appointed on the post of
Police Constable, is duty bound to disclose the offence registered against him
and from perusal of the petition, it appears that the aforesaid four offences
have been registered against the petitioner.
9. The jurisdiction of the High Court in writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India is to examine the decision-making process rather
than to act as a Court of Appeal to substitute its own decision. In appropriate
cases, if the Court finds that the decision-making process is arbitrary or
illegal, the Court will direct the authority for consideration rather than to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1018
4 WP-13787-2020
substitute the decision of the competent authority with that of its own.
10. In the case at hand, allegation has been levelled against the
petitioner is that he has concealed the material information regarding
registration of aforesaid four offences against him.
11. Although the petitioner in his rejoinder contended that he has
informed the District Commandant, Shivpuri regarding registration of a
criminal case for the offences under Sections 354, 456 of IPC against him but
he has never disclosed the factum of other three offences registered against
him.
12. Suppression of material information sought by the employer or
furnishing false information itself amounts to moral turpitude and is also
separate and distinct from involvement in a criminal case [See : Devendra
Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal [(2013) 9 SCC 363].
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal and
Others Vs. SK.Nazrul Islam, (2011) 10 SCC 184, it has been held as under: -
"We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we fail
to appreciate how when a criminal case under Sections 148, 323,
380, 448, 427, 506 of IPC, against the respondent, was pending in
the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia,
Howrah, any mandamus could have been issued by the High Court
to the authorities to appoint the respondent as a Constable. Surely,
the authorities entrusted with the responsibility of appointing
constables were under duty to verify the antecedents of a
candidate to find out whether he is suitable for the post of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1018
5 WP-13787-2020
constable and so long as the candidate has not been acquitted in
the criminal case of the charges under Sections 148, 323, 380, 448,
427, 506, IPC, he cannot possibly be held to be suitable for
appointment to the post of Constable".
14. Although the appellant has submitted copy of two judgments
(Annexures P-2 and P-3) in regard with two offences [Criminal
Case No.103/2014 (Crime No.1/2014) & No.941/2017 (Crime
No.133/2017)] registered against him, but he did not produce the
judgments/orders passed in other two offences [Criminal Case No.45/1993 &
No. 81/1994], which were registered against him, therefore, it appears that
the petitioner has concealed the material facts regarding registration of
offences against him.
15. The larger Bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh Pawar Vs.
High Court of Madhya Pradesh and another [W.P. No.5865/2016, decided on
12.01.2018] has held as under:-
"Decision of Criminal Court on the basis of compromise or
an acquittal cannot be treated that the candidate possesses good
character, which may make him eligible, as the criminal
proceedings are with the view to find culpability of commission of
offence whereas the appointment to the civil post is in view of his
suitability to the post. The test for each of them is based upon
different parameters and therefore, acquittal in a criminal case is
not a certificate of good conduct to a candidate. The competent
Authority has to take a decision in respect of the suitability of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1018
6 WP-13787-2020
candidate to discharge the functions of a civil post and that mere
acquittal in a criminal case would not be sufficient to infer that the
candidate possesses good character. Division Bench judgment of
this Court in W.P.No.5887/2016 (Arvind Gurjar vs. State of M.P.)
is overruled. Another Division Bench judgment in W.A.
No.367/2015 (Sandeep Pandey vs. State of M.P. and others) is
also overruled."
16. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion
that four criminal offences have been registered against the petitioner,
although out of four, in two offences, he has been acquitted by the competent
Court, but he has been acquitted after giving benefit of doubt, therefore, his
acquittal cannot be treated as an honorable acquittal.
17. Apart from the above, petitioner has concealed the material facts
of registration of four offences against him. He has intimated his department
regarding one offence only. Suppression of material information regarding
aforesaid criminal antecedents also amounts to moral turpitude act of the
petitioner.
18. Accordingly, on the basis of the aforesaid, this Court is of the
considered opinion that as per Rule 23(cha) of the Rules, 2016, petitioner has
failed to furnish the requisite information regarding registration of offence
against him within 48 hours to the District Commandant, therefore, as per
the Rule 23(cha), petitioner has not followed the terms of the discipline and
he deserves to be terminated, therefore, the order dated 27.08.2020
(Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 3 is in accordance with law
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1018
7 WP-13787-2020
and does not call for any interference and the citations filed by the petitioner
are not applicable in the instant matter.
19. Apart from the above, petitioner is having four criminal
antecedents, therefore, he is not entitled to remain in the service in a
disciplined police force. Petitioner did not file any departmental appeal as per
Section 26 of the Rules, 2016 before the competent higher authorities, hence,
due to availability of efficacious alternative remedy, this petition is also not
maintainable.
20. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Abhi
