Telangana High Court
Jakkula Bhaskar vs The State Of Telangana, And 2 Others on 10 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.No. 1476 of 2021
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of
mandamus declaring the impugned memorandum vide
Rc.No.130/Rect/Admn.4/2020, dated 19.12.2020 issued by the
respondent No.2, as illegal, arbitrary and against the Principles
of Natural Justice and consequently to direct the respondents to
set aside the impugned memorandum dated 19.12.2020 and to
direct them to consider the candidature of the petitioner's
provisional selection to the post of SCT PC (AR) in Hyderabad, in
Recruitment Notification-2018 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 the petitioner belongs to BC-A Community and
pursuant to the notification issued by the respondents for
selection to the post of SCT PC(AR), he applied for the same and
he has been provisionally selected, subject to verification of
antecedents, certificate and medical fitness. It is submitted that
in the attestation form, the petitioner has given the details of
the criminal case registered against him in Consecutive (CON)
TMD,J
No.1418/2018, under Sections 185(a) and 207 of M.V.Act of
Kukatpally Traffic Police Station and that he had pleaded guilty
and was convicted for a period of seven days by the Court IV
Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally in
S.T.C.No.21485/2018. It is submitted that the respondent No.2
has issued a show cause notice vide Rc.No.213/Rectt./
Genl.2/2019, dated 24.02.2020, to show cause as to why the
petitioner's provisional selection to the post of SCT PC (AR), in
Hyderabad, should not be cancelled since the petitioner was
involved in a Drunk and Drive Case. The petitioner submitted a
detailed reply stating that on Vinayaka Nimajjanam day, his
friends forced him to take one sip of alcohol and immediately
thereafter he left the place for another work by driving and was
caught by Kukatpally Police and as directed by the police, on
the next morning, he attended the counselling with his family
members and as per the Court orders, he suffered in jail for
seven days. It is submitted that he tendered his apology and
promised that such incident would never happen in future and
requested to consider his candidature for training. The
respondent No.2, however, issued a Memorandum vide
Rc.No.213/Rectt./Genl.2/2019, dated 07.09.2020 cancelling
the petitioner's provisional selection by holding that "the
TMD,J
explanation submitted by Sri.Jakkula Bhasker (Reg.No.1141983)
has been examined along with the connected records that in the
case of Drunken and Drive, the candidate was jailed for seven
days and deserves to be viewed seriously and therefore, the
provisional selection of the candidate deserves to be cancelled".
3. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed
W.P.No.19775/2020 and vide orders dated 10.11.2020, the
impugned order was set aside and the respondents were
directed to examine the case of the petitioner in terms of the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar
Singh's case with respect to involvement and conviction in a
petty case and to pass appropriate orders. It is submitted that
the consequent thereto, the respondent No.2 has issued the
impugned memorandum vide Rc.No.130/Rect/Admn.4/2020,
dated 19.12.2020, cancelling the provisional selection of the
petitioner herein. Challenging the same, the present writ
petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner has been sincere and transparent in divulging the
information about the criminal case and conviction in the
criminal case against the petitioner and had also explained the
TMD,J
circumstances under which the offence has occurred and had
apologized for the same and had promised that such incident
will never happen in future. It is submitted in spite of the same,
the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner
in proper prospective and also the guidelines issued by the Apex
Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and
Others 1. It is submitted that the respondents have again
reiterated their earlier stand that the involvement of the
petitioner in Drunk and Drive Case, is a case of Moral Turpitude
and accordingly the appointment of the petitioner was
cancelled. It is submitted that the petitioner had explained the
circumstances under which he had consumed the alcohol and
that he was aware of the harm it would cause if the petitioner
had driven the vehicle in such a condition and it is submitted
that for a petty case where there occurred no incident, the
petitioner should not be banned for life by refusing the
employment on the said ground.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance upon the order of the Allahabad High Court in the case
1 (2016) 8 SCC 471
TMD,J
of Mangali vs. Chhakki Lal and Others 2, wherein the case
'moral turpitude' has been considered and the Court has
explained the term 'moral turpitude' to mean as under:
5. With great respect, it appears to me that some or
the observations made in these decisions have been too
widely stated and if followed literally may make every
act punishable in law an offence involving moral
turpitude that however could not be the intention with
which those observations were made. From consideration
of the dictionary meaning of the words 'moral' and
'turpitude' as well as the real ratio dividend of the cases
the principle which emerges appear to be that the
question whether a certain offence involves moral
turpitude or not will necessarily depend on the
circumstances in which the offence is committed. It is not
every punishable act that can be considered to be an
offence involving moral turpitude. Had that been so, the
qualification "involving moral turpitude" would not have
been used by the Legislature and it would have
disqualified every person who had been convicted of any
offence, the tests which should ordinarily be applied for
judging whether a certain offence does or does not involve
moral turpitude appear to be: (1) whether the act leading
to a conviction was such as could shock the moral
conscience of society in general, (2) whether the motive
which led to the act was a base one and (3) whether on
account of the act having been committed the perpetrator
could be considered to be of a depraved character or a
person who was to be looked down upon by the society.
6. No absolute standard can be laid down for
deciding whether a particular act is to be considered one
involving moral turpitude but the above are the general
tests which should be applied and which should in most
cases be sufficient for enabling one to arrive at a correct
conclusion on the question.
2 (1963) AIR (Allahabad) 527
TMD,J
6. It is submitted hat in the said case also, the issue
was possession of bhang in a small quantity and the Hon'ble
Court has considered that the possession of consumption of
bhang in small quantity is not a prohibited item in the area in
which the petitioner therein lived, but was a prohibited item in
Kanpur, where he was intercepted and has been arrested. It is
submitted that in the case of the petitioner herein also the
consumption of alcohol was not found to be in a very large
extent and therefore, the respondents should be directed to
consider the case of the petitioner leniently with a further
promise that he will not commit such offence in future and
therefore, the respondents should be directed to consider his
case for appointment.
7. Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand,
relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.20348 of 2012, dated 14.06.2022, wherein the Division
Bench has held that the decision to assess the suitability of a
candidate, having regard to involvement in criminal case should
be left to the Selection Committee. It is submitted that whether
the Selection Committee has to verify the antecedents, nature of
crime, nature of acquittal, whether it is based on benefit of
TMD,J
doubt; witnesses turning hostile; was a compromise resulted in
not deposing against accused; offence compounded etc., which
was observed that near narrow window is available to the
candidate to seek employment in the police force if he was
involved in crime. On the other hand, the greater latitude is
given to the appointing authority/recruiting agency in clearing a
candidate on antecedent verification.
8. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the
petitioner's provisional selection was cancelled not only because
of his involvement in criminal case, but because of conviction in
the criminal case. It is submitted that the rule provides for
disqualifying a candidate if he has been convicted by a Criminal
Court.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner had also argued
on the proportionality of the punishment and submitted that for
a petty offence such as this, the petitioner should not be
banished from public employment forever.
10. Learned Government Pleader stated that the said
principle of disproportionality of punishment would not apply in
this case as it is not a case of misconduct during the course of
TMD,J
employment, but it is with regard to the fitness of a person to
enter into public employment and therefore, the contentions of
the petitioner are not acceptable.
11. Having regard to the rival contentions and the
material on record, this Court finds that the reason for
cancellation of the provisional selection of the petitioner was
that he has been convicted for a period of seven days for the
offences under Sections 185(a) and 207 of M.V.Act. The
petitioner on breath analyzer, found to have consumed alcohol
three times the normally allowed quantity. The petitioner has
not challenged the order of punishment, but has undergone the
punishment and had also not suppressed the same in the
attestation form at the time of certificate verification. As rightly
pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
societal norms have changed and drinking is no longer a taboo,
but is a part of many celebrations. However, the "Drunk and
Drive" activity has been declared as prohibited activity as it has
many a times caused accidents, resulting in deaths not only of
the person who has consumed alcohol and was found to be
driving, but also innocent passersby.
TMD,J
12. In view of the same, the menace of the Drunk and
Drive has to be viewed seriously and strict action has to be
taken in this regard. However, this Court is also aware of the
hardships undergone by the candidates for selection to the post
of Police Constables and having been provisionally selected for
the said post, the petitioner was not being considered for
appointment solely on the ground that he has been convicted
for criminal offence for 'Drunk and Driving'. The stand of the
department that the petitioner was involved in an offence of
'moral turpitude' and therefore, he cannot be considered for
appointment, is in the opinion of this Court, not sustainable. An
offence of moral turpitude would be such that the offence would
cause grave hardship to the society. No doubt, if the petitioner
had caused an accident by the Drunken Driving, it would have
affected third parties and that it would become an offence
against the society. However, the petitioner, though has been
found to have consumed larger quantity of alcohol than is
normally allowed, fortunately, there was no accident and the
petitioner having realized his mistake, has apologized and has
also promised that such an incident would not occur again. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of
India and Others (cited supra) has held that for the petty/trivial
TMD,J
cases in which conviction has been recorded against the youth,
the employer may in its discretion ignore such cases for public
employment. Though, this Court is not finding fault with the
authorities for canceling the provisional selection on the ground
that the petitioner has been convicted by the Criminal Court,
this Court is of the opinion that the respondents ought to have
taken a lenient view in the matter, in the light of the confidential
antecedent report on the petitioner. Admittedly there are no
adverse remarks on the conduct of the petitioner. Therefore,
drawing the extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct
the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner for
appointment to the post of STC PC (AR) de hors the conviction
made by the Criminal Court in the case of the petitioner herein.
The petitioner shall give an undertaking that he shall not
indulge in such offences in future and if it is found that the
petitioner is indulging in such offences, his appointment shall
forthwith be cancelled.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
TMD,J
14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 10.06.2024
bak
