Edla Ganesh vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3816 Tel

         THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

          WRIT PETITION Nos.1663 AND 1719 of 2021


COMMON ORDER:


      Since the issue involved in these two writ petitions is same,

they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order.


2.    I have heard the submissions of Sri Ramesh Chilla, Learned

Counsel for the petitioners, learned Special Government Pleader,

appearing for Respondents and perused the record.

3. Petitioners in these writ petitions are aggrieved of the action of

respondents in cancelling their provisional selection to the post of

Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (Civil) and (AR)

respectively.

4. Petitioners have applied for the post of SCT Police Constable

(Civil) and (A.R.) in response to the notification, dated 31.05.2018

and were provisionally selected for the said posts. When their

provisional selection was cancelled by orders, dated 23.12.2020 and

28.12.2020, the petitioners have filed W.P.Nos.20210 and 19662 of

2020, which were disposed of by this Court on 06.11.2020 and

16.11.2020 setting aside the said cancellation orders with a direction

to the 2nd respondent to consider the cases of the petitioners afresh

by following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2 JS, J W.P.No.1663&1719 of 2021

Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India 1. Thereafter, the impugned

orders, dated 23.12.2020 and 28.12.2020 are passed again

cancelling the provisional selection of petitioners on the ground of

pendency of criminal cases against them. Case of the petitioner in

W.P.No.1663 of 2021 is that he has disclosed about the pendency of

criminal case against him in the attestation form and subsequently,

action against him was dropped as the complainant was not intended

to proceed with the case as she had no grievance against the

petitioner. Case of the petitioner in W.P.No.1719 of 2021 is that he

has also disclosed about the pendency of criminal cases against him

in which, he was acquitted. Petitioner in W.P.No.1719 of 2021 has

also contended that he was a juvenile at the time of registration of

those crimes and was aged 17 years 2 months and inspite of the

same, he was not tried as a juvenile, however, was acquitted by the

criminal Court. Hence, his case is that considering his acquittal from

the criminal cases and also considering that he was a juvenile at the

time of those crimes, he is entitled for appointment as SCT Police

Constable (Civil).

5. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent /

Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board, admitting the

provisional selection of petitioners to the posts of SCT Police

Constable (Civil) and (AR). In the counter affidavit, it is stated that

2016(8) SCC 471 3 JS, J W.P.No.1663&1719 of 2021

the petitioner in W.P.No.1663 of 2021 was charged with the offences

punishable under Sections 417 and 376 (I) of IPC and the petitioner

had given an impression that he married the victim girl and they

were leading marital life, but as per the report of the Superintendent

of Police, Nagarkurnool District, the petitioner and the victim were

living separately and the victim was married to another person and

that the petitioner had cheated the victim.

6. Petitioner in W.P.No.1719 of 2021 was charged with the

offences punishable under Sections 379 of IPC and under Section

110(E) of Cr.P.C. on the allegation that he committed theft of two-

wheelers, which were seized by the police during the course of

investigation. It is stated that though the petitioner is claiming that

he was to be tried under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, the

competent criminal Court had tried him for the above offences in

accordance with law, however, he was acquitted of the said charges

as the panch witnesses for confession and seizure have turned

hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. The 2nd

respondent contended that since the acquittal of petitioner in

W.P.No.1719 of 2021 was not a clean acquittal and as the cases

registered against him involve moral turpitude, as per Rule - 3 (G)

(vi) of the SCT Rules, he is not eligible for appointment to the post of

SCT Police Constable (Civil), which is a disciplined force.

                                     4                             JS, J
                                              W.P.No.1663&1719 of 2021

7. The admitted case of the parties is that the petitioners have

appeared to the posts of SCT Police Constable (Civil) and (AR) and

were provisionally selected. However, their provisional selection was

cancelled through impugned orders on the ground that they were

involved in the criminal cases of moral turpitude. The contention of

petitioner in W.P.No.1719 of 2021 is that since he was a juvenile at

the time of registration of the crimes against him, his case can be

considered for appointment. The said contention of petitioner cannot

be accepted at this stage, as he has not objected for his trial before

the regular criminal Court and kept quiet all the way and waited till

conclusion of criminal proceedings against him. Once the trial has

been conducted by the criminal Court and completed the

proceedings, it is not open for the petitioner to take the plea at this

stage that he was a juvenile at relevant point of time. Therefore,

this Court is not going into the said aspect, in the writ proceedings.

8. Coming to the other aspect of moral turpitude, the respondents

contend that the offences under Sections 417 and 376(1) of IPC

levelled against the petitioner in W.P.No.1663 of 2021 and the

offences under Sections 379 of IPC and under Section 110(E) of

Cr.P.C. levelled against the petitioner in W.P.No.1719 of 2021 relate

to moral turpitude. Since the petitioners were charged with the

offences of theft and rape, they are not eligible for appointment into 5 JS, J W.P.No.1663&1719 of 2021

the disciplined police force. It is further contended by the

respondents that the acquittal of petitioner in W.P.No.1719 of 2021

from the criminal cases was due to the panch witnesses turning

hostile before the criminal Court. Such acquittal cannot be termed as

a clean acquittal so as to entitle the petitioner for appointment. In

this connection, a reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Methu Meda 2, wherein, it is

held that if a person is acquitted by extending 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

employment, that too, in disciplined forces. In view of the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment, the

petitioners are not entitled for appointment in Police force, as they

were charged with the offences of 417 and 376(1) of IPC in one case

and under Sections 379 of IPC and Section 110(E) of Cr.P.C. in the

other case, both involving moral turpitude and the acquittal of

petitioner in W.P.No.1719 of 2021 was not a clean acquittal but was

the result of the panch witnesses turning hostile and the action

against the petitioner in W.P.No.1663 of 2021 was dropped as he

married the victim girl only for the purpose of getting job thereafter

they are living separately. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled

for any relief.

    (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1
                                  6                             JS, J
                                           W.P.No.1663&1719 of 2021

9. For the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions are devoid of

merit and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date:10.11.2023 Ksk