Telangana High Court
Pathakokala Satish Babu vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 19 October, 2023
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.17368 of 2021
ORDER:
Petitioner is aggrieved of the Memorandum, dated 17.12.2020
cancelling his provisional selection to the post of Stipendiary Cadet
Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (Civil).
2. I have heard the submissions of Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, Learned
Counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.V.Rama Rao, learned Special
Government Pleader for Home appearing for Respondents and
perused the record.
3. Petitioner has applied for the post of SCT Police Constable
(Civil) in response to the notification, dated 31.05.2018 and was
provisionally selected for the said post. When his provisional
selection was cancelled by order, dated 07.09.2020 passed by the 2nd
respondent, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.19711 of 2020, which
was disposed of by this Court on 09.11.2020 setting aside the said
cancellation order with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider
the case of the petitioner afresh by following the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India 1.
Thereafter, the impugned order, dated 17.12.2020 is passed again
cancelling the provisional selection of petitioner on the ground of
2016(8) SCC 471
2 JS, J
W.P.No.17368 of 2021
pendency of criminal cases against him. Case of the petitioner is
that he has disclosed about the pendency of criminal cases against
him in the attestation form and was acquitted from the said cases on
29.11.2011. Petitioner has also contended that he was a juvenile at
the time of registration of those crimes and was aged 17 years 9
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 is 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).
4. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent /
Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board, admitting the
provisional selection of petitioner to the post of SCT Police Constable
(Civil). In the counter affidavit it is stated that petitioner was
charged with the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 454 of
IPC on the allegation that he committed theft of Laptops and mobile
phones, 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
3 JS, J
W.P.No.17368 of 2021
hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. The 2nd
respondent contended that since the acquittal of petitioner 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. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ
petition.
5. The admitted case of the parties is that the petitioner has
appeared to the post of SCT Police Constable (Civil) and was
provisionally selected. However, his provisional selection was
cancelled through impugned order on the ground that he was
involved in the criminal cases of moral turpitude. The contention of
petitioner 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.
4 JS, J
W.P.No.17368 of 2021
6. Coming to the other aspect of moral turpitude, the respondents
contend that the offences under Sections 380 and 454 of IPC levelled
against the petitioner relate to moral turpitude. Since the petitioner
was charged with the offences of theft, he is not eligible for
appointment into the disciplined police force. It is further contended
by the respondents that the acquittal of petitioner from the criminal
cases was due to the panch witnesses turning hostile before the
criminal Court. Such acquittal cannot be termed as 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 the employment,
that too, in disciplined forces. In view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment, the petitioner is not
entitled for appointment in Police force, as he was charged with the
offences of 380 and 454 of IPC involving moral turpitude and his
acquittal was also not a clean acquittal but was the result of the
panch witnesses turning hostile.
(2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1
5 JS, J
W.P.No.17368 of 2021
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit
and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date:19.10.2023
Ksk
