Telangana High Court

Ch. Satish vs The State Of Telangana on 26 December, 2023

     THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI

                       W.P.No. 912 of 2023

ORDER:

In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of

mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in

issuing the impugned proceedings vide Memorandum

Rc.No.635/Rect./Admn.2/2011-22, dated 18.10.2022,

cancelling the provisional selection of the Petitioner to the post

of SCT PC(AR) in Adilabad in Recruitment-2008, as illegal,

arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of nature of justice

and contrary to the Law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and also the

order passed by this Court in W P No 8451 of 2013, dated

14.07.2022 and consequently to set aside the impugned

proceedings dated 18.10.2022 and to pass such other order or

orders in the interest of justice.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ

petition are that respondents have issued notification dated

30.12.2008 for selection to the post of SCT-PC (AR). The

petitioner participated in the selection process and was

provisionally selected for the said post in Adilabad District and

TMD,J

the same was communicated by the respondent No.2 and

pursuant to the provisional selection, the respondent No.4, vide

his Memo dated 05.01.2011, required the petitioner to appear

for medical examination. The petitioner has undergone the

medical examination. In the meantime, the respondent No.4

vide proceedings dated 25.05.2011, issued the order of

cancellation of the provisional selection on the alleged ground

that the petitioner was involved in the offence of Moral

Turpitude, though the petitioner was acquitted of the offence by

the competent Criminal Court in SC.No.300 of 2007, dated

06.12.2007, which is even prior to the issuance of subject

recruitment notification. It is submitted that the petitioner has

categorically mentioned in the Attestation Form duly signed by

him that he was honorably acquitted of the criminal case after

an elaborate trial. Aggrieved of the cancellation of the

provisional appointment, the petitioner approached the APAT by

filing O.A.No.5661 of 2011 and the Tribunal had passed interim

suspension of the cancellation order dated 25.05.2011.

However, the respondents did not comply with the said order

and thereafter, the matter was heard at length and the

application was decided in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter,

TMD,J

the respondents filed a Writ Petition before this Court i.e.,

W.P.No.8451 of 2013 and the same was disposed of with a

direction to consider the case of the petitioner vide orders dated

12.07.2022 and the respondents, instead of following the

directions of this Court and also direction of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Avart Singh Vs. Union of India 1,

and implementing the orders, instead have passed the

impugned orders dated 18.10.2022 duly reiterating that the

provisional selection of the petitioner to the post of SCT PC (AR)

in Adilabad in Recruitment-2008 was cancelled. Challenging the

same, this writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the direction of this Court in W.P.No.8451 of 2013 has already

become final and except for implementing the said order, the

respondents could not have passed the impugned order. He has

further drawn the attention of this Court to the order of the

Criminal Court in which the petitioner has been honorably

acquitted of the criminal offence and also judgment of the

Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.1474 of 2009, dated

12.07.2022 following which the W.P.No.8451 of 2013 has been

1 (2016) SCC 471

TMD,J

disposed of vide orders dated 14.07.2022. He is therefore,

seeking an order setting aside the impugned order and a

direction to the respondents to issue appointment order to the

petitoner for the post of SCT PC (AR) with all consequential

benefits.

4. Learned Special Government Pleader for Home,

however, relied upon the averments made in the counter

affidavit and submitted that the Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.1474

of 2009 dated 12.07.2022 was disposed of directing the

respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of

the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Avtar Singh (cited supra) and to pass appropriate orders in

accordance with law and the writ petition filed by the

respondents herein i.e., W.P.No.8451 of 2013 was disposed of

directing the petitioners therein to follow the order passed in

W.P.No.1474 of 2009 dated 12.07.2022 and therefore, the case

of the petitioner was examined in accordance with guidelines

issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh

(cited supra) and a speaking order was issued to the petitioner

on 18.10.2022 informing him the circumstances under which

the petitioner's case could not be considered for appointment as

TMD,J

SCT PC. It is submitted that the petitioner has not raised any

new points except for stating that the decision of the

respondents is not in accordance with the guidelines issued by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (cited

supra).

5. As regards the merits of the case is concerned, it is

submitted that criminal case in Cr.No.04/2007, under Sections

147, 148, 302, 109 r/w 149 IPC was registered against the

petitioner herein and others and that the petitioner was arrayed

as A6. It is submitted that as per the charge sheet, the accused

stabbed the complainant's father with knives, due to which he

died while undergoing treatment and during the trial, the

material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution

and therefore, the criminal case has ended in acquittal of all the

accused. It is submitted that the offence in which the petitioner

involved is grave in nature involving moral turpitude and

therefore, he is disqualified for appointment.

6. He referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and Another Vs.

TMD,J

Mehar Singh 2, wherein it was held that a candidate wishing to

join Police Force must be a person of utmost rectitude and must

have impeccable character and integrity and a person having

criminal antecedent will not fit in this category and that 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 Forces.

7. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of State of MP and Others Vs.

Parvez Khan in Civil Appeal No.10613 of 2014, dated

01.12.2014, wherein it was held that refusal by the competent

authority to recruit the respondent on the ground of adverse

antecedents is not liable to be interfered with.

8. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Methu

Medha 3 in Civil Appeal No.6238 of 2021 wherein the decisions

of the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (cited supra) as

2 (2013) 7 SCC 685 3 (2022) 1 SCC 1

TMD,J

well as Mehar Singh (cited supra) have followed and it was held

that employer is having a right to consider the candidature of a

candidate in terms of circulars issued by the Screening

Committee. He therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ

petition.

9. Having regard to the rival contentions and the

material on record, this court finds that the petitioner was

allegedly involved in SC.No.300 of 2007 and vide orders dated

06.12.2007, the A1 to A9 were found not guilty and they were

acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the charges leveled

against them. After going through the said judgment, it is

noticed that there are no specific references to the petitioner

herein, except stating that on the date of incident, the petitioner

also went along with the other accused with knives and sticks

and waited for the victim at the kirana shop of Pw6 and it is A2

& A3 who stabbed Sathaiah and that the other accused have

beaten Sathaiah indiscriminately and escaped from the scene of

offence and subsequently, the victim died while he was being

shifted to Karimnagar Hospital. It is noticed that the Criminal

Court has acquitted the accused on the ground that the

prosecution utterly failed to prove that the accused had

TMD,J

attacked the victim and had beaten him and caused injuries to

him. Thus, it can be noticed that the allegations against the

accused have not been proved and the appointing authority

ought to have considered the same and also consider whether

he is fit to be appointed to a disciplined force like Police.

10. In a similar case in W.P.No.25870 of 2022, this

Court, vide its decision dated 21.12.2023, has considered the

precedents on this issue and has held as under:

5. Learned Special Government Pleader, however, relied upon the stand taken by the Department in the impugned order and submitted that since the petitioner was not acquitted of the charges with clear acquittal on merits, the petitioner could not be considered for recruitment to the police service which is a disciplined force and he has to be of impeccable character and integrity. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and

others Vs. Bunty .

6. In the case of Gugulothu Nagu Vs. The State of Telangana

rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department , a Coordinate Bench of this Court has considered several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India including the decision in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India (cited supra) and also referred to the phrase "Honourable acquittal" and also the definition of "Moral turpitude" and has held as under:

(2020) 17 SCC 654

W.P.No.2106 of 2021 dt.25.10.2021

TMD,J

"8. The phrase "Honourable acquittal" is unknown to criminal law. However, in service law jurisprudence there has been a consistent approach by the Constitutional Courts in recognizing the concept of 10 "Honourable acquittal". It would be difficult to lay down criteria as to what would constitute an "Honourable acquittal"

or "Clean acquittal". Under criminal law, "Acquittal" means that the charge against the accused is not proved. There may be varying situations like acquittal recorded by giving benefit of doubt to the accused; acquittal recorded for lack of evidence or failure to prove charges against the accused; there may be situations where prosecution may not adduce evidence of crucial witnesses; some of the crucial witnesses may have died; there may be negligence on part of the prosecution in the investigation and production of crucial witnesses before the court. In the backdrop of the given illustrations it would be difficult to exhaustively lay down parameters as to what would constitute "Honorable acquittal". The Court has to go by the fact situation existing in each case. The Supreme Court while dealing with the concept of "Honorable acquittal" in DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE v. S. SAMUTHIRAM 6 , held as under:

"24. The meaning of the expression 'honourable acquittal' came up for consideration before this Court in Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal [(1994) 1 SCC 541]. In that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The expressions 'honourable acquittal', 'acquitted of blame', 'fully exonerated' are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by

(2013) 1 SCC 598

TMD,J

judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression 'honourably acquitted'. When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.

25. In R.P. Kapoor v. Union of India [AIR 1964 SC 787], it was held even in the case of acquittal, departmental proceedings may follow where the acquittal is other than honourable. In State of Assam and another v. Raghava Rajgopalachari [1972 SLR 44 (SC)], this Court quoted with approval the views expressed by Lord Williams, J. in Robert Stuart Wauchope V. Emperor [ILR (1934) 61 Cal. 168] which is as follows:

"8. ... The expression "honourably acquitted" is one which is unknown to court of justice. Apparently it is a form of order used in courts martial and other extra judicial tribunals. We said in our judgment that we accepted the explanation given by the appellant believed it to be true and considered that it ought to have been accepted by the Government authorities and by the magistrate. Further, we decided that the appellant had not misappropriated the monies referred to in the charge. It is thus clear that the effect of our judgment was that the appellant was acquitted as fully and completely as it was possible for him to be acquitted. Presumably, this is equivalent to what Government authorities term 'honourably acquitted'."

26. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision in the service rule for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably acquitted by a Criminal Court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason is that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish

TMD,J

the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases where a person is acquitted for technical reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other witnesses turned hostile etc. In the case on hand the prosecution did not take steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses on the ground that the complainant and his wife turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. We are not prepared to say in the 12 instant case, the respondent was honourably acquitted by the criminal court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not provide so."

"11. Moral turpitude is defined as "An act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man." The involvement of the petitioner in an offence of 'moral turpitude' would arise for consideration if there is a conviction recorded against him. But once there is an acquittal of the accused and more so acquittal is held to be on merits and not on technical grounds, the issue of 'moral turpitude' becomes redundant. The principle of law laid down in MEHAR SINGH's case (1 supra) and BUNTY's case (3 supra), on which reliance is placed by the learned Special Government Pleader for Home, is not applicable to the facts of the instant case since it is held that the acquittal of the petitioner was not on technical grounds or benefit of doubt."

For coming to this conclusion, another judgment of this Court in W.P.No.28458 of 2017 and batch dt.06.12.2017 was also considered.

TMD,J

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Union of India and others Vs. Methu Meda , wherein the law in respect of the expressions "honourable acquittal", "acquittal of blame"

and "fully acquitted" has been considered and it was held as under:

"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. The 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 Pradeep Kumar [State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Pradeep Kumar, (2018) 1 SCC 797 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 504 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] , this Court has taken the same view, as reiterated in Mehar Singh [State v. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 669 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 910] . The same view has again been reiterated by this Court in Raj Kumar [State v. Raj Kumar, (2021) 8 SCC 347 : (2021) 2 SCC (L&S) 745] .

"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

(2022) 1 SCC 1

TMD,J

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 [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 [Union of India v. Methu Meda, 2013 SCC OnLine MP 10701] are not sustainable in law, as discussed hereinabove."

8. Having regard to the above precedents, it is clear that it is for the petitioner who has to give all the necessary information and it is for the appointing authority which has to take a conscious decision about the desirability or otherwise of employing such an employee/person having regard to the relevant facts available as to the antecedents. However, where there are facts available on record creating doubt about the integrity of a person, then it is a fit case for rejection. However, in this case, it is a case where the complaint is that some boys were harassing the victim/de facto complainant in the name of love, but when it came to identifying the accused, there was no identification either by the victim complainant or by her relatives or by the mediator. What is clear acquittal or honourable acquittal has already been brought out in various cases which have also been reproduced hereinabove.

9. In view of the same, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner was honourably acquitted from the charges and the recruitment authority ought to have considered the same and ought to have issued appointment letter to the petitioner since the petitioner was acquitted of the charges even before issuance of the recruitment notification.

TMD,J

Therefore, respondent No.1 is directed to issue the appointment letter to the petitioner with all consequential benefits and send him for training along with the next batch being sent for training.

11. In view of the above, in this case also, this Court is

of the view that the petitioner was honorably acquitted and

respondent No.1 is directed to issue the appointment letter to

the petitioner with all consequential benefits and send him for

training along with the next batch being sent for training.

12. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is

allowed. No order as to costs.

13. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ

Petition shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI Date: 26.12.2023 bak

TMD,J

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI