Kasturi Thirupathi vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 2301 Tel

          THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

                   WRIT PETITION No.28981 of 2019

ORDER:

Petitioner is aggrieved of the Memo, dated 02.12.2019

cancelling his provisional selection to the post of Stipendiary Cadet

Trainee (SCT) Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil).

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri Purushotham Reddy Narra,

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Learned Special Government

Pleader for Home appearing for Respondents and perused the record.

3. Pursuant to the notification, dated 31.05.2018, petitioner has

applied for the post of SCT Sub-Inspector (Civil) and was

provisionally selected for the said post by securing 247 marks out of

a total of 400. While so, a show-cause notice, dated 21.10.2019 was

issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his

provisional selection to the said post should not be cancelled in view

of pendency of criminal case against him. Case of the petitioner is

that he was falsely implicated in a criminal case registered for the

offences under Section 376 (2) (i) (4) of IPC and Section 5 (i) r/w 6

of POCSO Act and the same was pending trial vide S.C.No.59 of 2017

before the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Karimnagar and that he had mentioned about the pendency of said

case in his attestation form. It is stated that by the date of receipt of 2 JS, J W.P.No.28981 of 2019

the above show cause notice, the trial in the criminal case was

concluded and accordingly he submitted the same in his detailed

explanation on 26.10.2019 and requested the respondents to allow

him to attend the basic training and in the event of his being

convicted, his appointment may be cancelled. On 11.11.2019,

judgment was pronounced in the above criminal case acquitting him

of the charges levelled against him. Therefore, on 12.11.2019 he

submitted the copy of the judgment to the 2nd respondent with a

request to issue appointment order. Inspite of the same, the 2nd

respondent has issued impugned memo, dated 02.12.2019 cancelling

his provisional selection on the ground that it was not a clean

acquittal and that a person having criminal antecedents will not fit for

selection to the said post. Grievance of the petitioner is that since he

has revealed about registration of criminal case in the application

itself and also about his subsequent acquittal in the said case, he is

entitled to be appointed to the post of SCT Sub-Inspector (Civil).

Hence, the writ petition.

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

Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board, wherein, the

provisional selection of the petitioner to the post of SCT Sub-

Inspector (Civil) is admitted. It is stated in the counter that as per

Rule 3 (G) (vi) of TS (SCT) Rules 1999, a person involved in an 3 JS, J W.P.No.28981 of 2019

offence involving moral turpitude is liable for disqualification and

cannot be appointed. Since the petitioner was involved in criminal

case for the offence under Section 376 (2) (i) (4) of IPC and Section

5 (i) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, his provisional selection was cancelled. It

is stated that a perusal of the judgment in S.C.No.59 of 2017 shows

that the petitioner had raped the victim on her refusal to marry him.

The victim had clearly deposed about the incident before the

Magistrate when her statement was recorded under Section 164 of

Cr.P.C., however, the victim and her parents have resiled from their

earlier statements and deposed that the accused/writ petitioner is

their relative to whom they had advanced some amount and as he

failed to repay the said amount, a false case was filed. It is stated

that while acquitting the accused, the learned Judge observed that

the parties seems to have compromised the matter. In view of the

same, the acquittal of petitioner cannot be termed as a clean

acquittal. In the counter affidavit, a reference was made to the

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehar Singh Vs.

Commissioner of Police, New Delhi 1 and extracted the following

paragraph from the said judgment:

"The Police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the society. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must

(2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 685 4 JS, J W.P.No.28981 of 2019

have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. 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 Force".

5. In the counter affidavit, a reference was also made to another

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Mandhya Pradesh

and others Vs. Parvez Khan 2, wherein, it is held that refusal by

the competent authority to recruit the respondent on the ground of

criminal antecedents is not liable to be interfered with. They further

referred to another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar

Singh Vs. Union of India 3, wherein, it is held that if acquittal has

been recorded in a case of moral turpitude or offence of

heinous/serious nature on technical ground and it is not a case of

clean acquittal or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the

employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents

and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the

employer. Accordingly, the respondents prayed to dismiss the writ

petition.

6. The admitted case of the parties is that the petitioner has

appeared for selection to the post of SCT Sub-Inspector of Police

Civil Appeal No.10613 of 2014

2016(8) SCC 471 5 JS, J W.P.No.28981 of 2019

(Civil) and was provisionally selected. However, his provisional

selection was cancelled through the impugned memo on the ground

of pendency of criminal case against him involving moral turpitude.

The case of the petitioner is that he furnished the details of the

criminal case at the time of making application itself and after his

acquittal from the said case also, he forwarded the judgment of the

Court to the 2nd respondent requesting to appoint him to the said

post and inspite of the same, the impugned memo is issued

cancelling his provisional selection. The respondents on the other

hand contended that though the petitioner is acquitted by the Court,

such acquittal is not a clean acquittal but was the result of the

material witnesses turning hostile during the course of trial. As the

charges levelled against the petitioner are all of grave nature and the

acquittal is not a clean acquittal, they have issued the impugned

memo cancelling the provisional selection of petitioner as per rules.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment

of this Court in W.P.No.15868 of 2021, dated 01.09.2022, wherein,

the case of the petitioner therein was referred to the Screening

Committee for re-examination for appointment in the light of his

acquittal in the criminal case. The report of the Screening

Committee is under consideration before the Government. This

judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the 6 JS, J W.P.No.28981 of 2019

present case, there is no Screening Committee to re-examine the

case of the petitioner.

8. The petitioner has also filed the order, dated 08.09.2016 in

Crl.P.No.12748 of 2016, whereby, this Court granted bail to him. A

perusal of the said order shows that the learned Judge, while

granting bail, has mentioned the facts of the case, however, on the

ground that the petitioner had married the victim, granted bail. This

supports the contention of the respondents that the acquittal was not

the clean acquittal and the petitioner was acquitted merely on the

ground of compromising the matter as has been observed by the

learned trial Court Judge in the judgment in the Sessions case.

9. In another judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the

petitioner in Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India and another 4,

when the employee was discharged from the Railway Protection

Force (RPF) on the ground that he suppressed the information

regarding his previous arrest/prosecution, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has set aside the said discharge order. This judgment also is

not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the case registered

therein was of trivial nature registered for the offences under

Sections 148, 149, 323, 506 and 356 of IPC and the defacto

complainant himself has filed an affidavit even before filing charge

2022(3) ALL MR 697 7 JS, J W.P.No.28981 of 2019

sheet, stating that no such alleged incident had happened and the

complaint was made due to misconception. Accordingly, the

petitioner therein was honourably acquitted from the said case. But,

in the present case, the petitioner was charged with grave offences

involving moral turpitude and his acquittal was not clean acquittal,

but was the result of compromise, and hence, he cannot take shelter

under the said judgment.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents has relied

on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India

Vs. Methu Meda 5, 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.

11. In another judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the

respondents in the case of State of Mandhya Pradesh and others

Vs. Bunty 6, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in case of

acquittal based on benefit of doubt or for any other technical reason,

employer can take into consideration all relevant facts to take

appropriate action as to fitness of incumbent for

appointment/continuance in service.

(2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1

(2020) 17 Supreme Court Cases 654 8 JS, J W.P.No.28981 of 2019

12. The above two judgments relied on by the learned counsel for

respondents are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of

the present case. In the present case also, the petitioner was

charged with grave offences involving moral turpitude, but however

he was acquitted of the said offences in view of compromising the

matter with the victim. Such acquittal cannot be termed to be a

clean acquittal so as to entitle the petitioner to seek appointment.

Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is

not entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date:13.09.2023 Ksk