Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjeev Singh Jadon vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 March, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 MP 413
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No.6176/2018
Sanjeev Singh Jadon vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
Gwalior, Dated : 23.03.2021
Shri Prashant Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Varun Kaushik, Government Advocate for the State.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed against the order dated 20.3.2017 passed by Inspector
General (Security), M.P. Bhopal and order dated 31.10.2017 passed
by Additional Director General of Police (SAF) Police Headquarter,
Bhopal by which the candidature of the petitioner for the post of
Constable was rejected.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that in the month of January,
2003, the recruitment to the post of Constable GD/Constable in 5 th
Battalion, SAF, Morena was conducted and the petitioner was
selected for the post of Constable GD and, accordingly by order
dated 29.3.2003 the appointment order was issued. It was specifically
mentioned in the appointment order that as per Rule 12 of Madhya
Pradesh Civil Services Quasi Permanent Rules, 1960, the services of
the petitioners were liable to be cancelled by issuance of one month's
notice or one month advance salary in lieu thereof. It appears that by
order dated 18.3.2004, Commandant 18 th Battalion, SAF, Gwalior
terminated the services of the petitioner by issuing a month's salary in
lieu of notice as his services are not required. The said order was
challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P. No.642/2004 and this
2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No.6176/2018
Sanjeev Singh Jadon vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
Court by interim order dated 31.3.2004 stayed the effect and
operation of order dated 19.3.2004. The said writ petition was
dismissed by order dated 22.11.2011. It appears that the petitioner
preferred Writ Appeal No.172/2012. It was the stand of the State
Government that the petitioner had suppressed the factum of
registration of offence against him punishable under Section 3/25 of
the Arms Act and, therefore, the appointment was secured by playing
fraud on the respondent. However, W.A. No.172/2012 was finally
disposed of by order dated 16.12.2016 with the following observations:
1. The competent authority ie respondent no.
2, shall reconsider the case of the petitioner to adjudge his suitability for retention in Police Force in terms of the above directions keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Avatar Singh.
2. The said consideration shall be made within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
3. The decision taken by the employer after the said consideration shall be communicated to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.
4. While considering the case of the appellant/petitioner the respondent shall neither be influenced by passing of the impugned termination order dated 19.3. 2004 Annexure P-1 nor 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.6176/2018 Sanjeev Singh Jadon vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
influenced by the fact of the petitioner having approached this court.
5. It is needless to emphasize that this court has not expressed any opinion on the suitability of the appellant/petitioner before retaining in service which is left entirely to the discretion of the competent authority before assessing on the basis of law discussed above and law laid down by the Apex Court. The competent authority is free to take decision either way.
3. It appears that thereafter the matter was reconsidered by the respondent on merits and by order dated 11.04.2017 the candidature of the petitioner was rejected and it was found that the petitioner is unfit for serving the police Department. Thereafter, again the petitioner filed W.P. No.3699/2017, which was allowed and the respondents were directed to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner. Now by order dated 31.10.2017 the petitioner has been once again declared unfit for recruitment.
4. Challenging the orders passed by the authorities, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that it is true that the petitioner had not disclosed the pendency of the criminal case in his character verification form, but ultimately he was acquitted by judgment dated 21.3.2013 passed in Criminal Case No.156/2001 by third Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhilwada, Rajasthan and, therefore, 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.6176/2018 Sanjeev Singh Jadon vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
there was no impediment in the appointment of the petitioner.
5. The State Counsel in compliance of order dated 23.9.2019 has produced the record of the Disciplinary Authority. It is submitted by Shri Kaushik that in the character verification form, the petitioner deliberately suppressed the pendency of the criminal case against him. It is submitted that character verification form was filled up by the petitioner in the year 2003 whereas he was acquitted in the year 2013 and on the date of submission of character verification form i.e. 10.2.2003, the petitioner was facing criminal trial for offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. It is submitted that false declaration by itself is sufficient to declare the petitioner unfit for his recruitment in the police force. It is further submitted that mere acquittal in a criminal case is not sufficient for the recruitment of a candidate in a uniform disciplined force but the authorities are well competent to consider the consequence of registration of criminal case.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 has held as under:-
"38.1 Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.
38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.6176/2018 Sanjeev Singh Jadon vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.
38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/ verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted :
38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.
38.4.2 Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.
38.4.3 If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving 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 employee.
38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.
38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.6176/2018 Sanjeev Singh Jadon vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.
38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.
38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.
38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."
The Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar, passed in Civil Appeal No. 11356 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (c) No.17404 of 2016) by judgment dtd. 26th November, 2018 has observed as under:-
''14. In Avtar Singh (supra), though this Court was principally concerned with the question as to non- disclosure or wrong disclosure of information, it was observed in paragraph 38.5 that even in cases where a truthful disclosure about a concluded case was made, the employer would still have a right to consider antecedents of the candidate and could not be compelled to appoint 7 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.6176/2018 Sanjeev Singh Jadon vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
such candidate.
15. In the present case, as on the date when the respondent had applied, a criminal case was pending against him. Compromise was entered into only after an affidavit disclosing such pendency was filed. On the issue of compounding of offences and the effect of acquittal under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C., the law declared by this Court in Mehar Singh (supra), specially in paragraphs 34 and 35 completely concludes the issue.
Even after the disclosure is made by a candidate, the employer would be well within his rights to consider the antecedents and the suitability of the candidate. While so considering, the employer can certainly take into account the job profile for which the selection is undertaken, the severity of the charges levelled against the candidate and whether the acquittal in question was an honourable acquittal or was merely on the ground of benefit of doubt or as a result of composition.
16. The reliance placed by Mr. Dave, learned Amicus Curiae on the decision of this Court in Mohammed Imran (supra) is not quite correct and said decision cannot be of any assistance to the respondent. In para 5 of said decision, this Court had found that the only allegation against the appellant therein was that he was travelling in an auto-rickshaw which was following the auto-rickshaw in which the prime accused, who was charged under Section 376 IPC, was travelling with the prosecutrix in question and that all the accused were acquitted as the prosecutrix did not support the allegation. The decision in Mohammed Imran (supra) thus turned on individual facts and cannot in any way be said to have departed from the line of decisions rendered by this Court in Mehar Singh (supra), Parvez Khan (supra) and Pradeep Kumar (supra).
17. We must observe at this stage that there is nothing on record to suggest that the decision taken by the concerned authorities in rejecting the candidature of the respondent was in any way actuated by mala fides or suffered on any other count. The decision on the question of suitability of the respondent, in our considered view, was absolutely correct and did not call for any interference. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the decisions rendered by the Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench and dismiss Writ Petition No.9412 of 8 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.6176/2018 Sanjeev Singh Jadon vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
2013 preferred by the respondent. No costs.'' The Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Imran Vs. State of Maharashtra and others passed in C.A. No. 10571 of 2018, by order dated 12-10-2018 has held as under :-
''6.Employment opportunities is a scarce commodity in our country. Every advertisement invites a large number of aspirants for limited number of vacancies. But that may not suffice to invoke sympathy for grant of relief where the credentials of the candidate may raise serious questions regarding suitability, irrespective of eligibility. Undoubtedly, judicial service is very different from other services and the yardstick of suitability that my apply to other services, may not be the same for a judicial service. But there cannot be any mechanical or rhetorical incantation of moral turpitude, to deny appointment in judicial service simplicitor. Much will depend on the facts of a case. Every individual deserves an opportunity to improve, learn from the past and move ahead in life by self-improvement. To make past conduct, irrespective of all considerations, albatross around the neck of the candidate, may not always constitute justice. Much will, however, depend on the fact situation of a case."
The Supreme Court in the case of Union of Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Ors. vs. Pradeep Kumar and Another, reported in (2018) 1 SCC 797 has held as under:-
''11. Entering into the police service required a candidate to be of good character, integrity and clean antecedents. In Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another v. Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685, the respondent was acquitted based on the compromise. This Court held that even though acquittal was based on compromise, it is still open to the Screening Committee to examine the suitability of the candidate and take a decision.......
12. While considering the question of suppression of 9 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.6176/2018 Sanjeev Singh Jadon vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
relevant information or false information in regard to criminal prosecution, arrest or pendency of criminal case(s) against the candidate, in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others(2016) 8 SCC 471, three-Judges Bench of this Court summarized the conclusion in para (38). As per the said decision in para (38.5), (SCC p. 508) ''38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate."
13. It is thus well settled that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle him for appointment to the post. Still it is open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether he is suitable for appointment to the post. From the observations of this Court in Mehar Singh and Parvez Khan cases, it is clear that a candidate to be recruited to the police service must be of impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was honourably acquitted/completely exonerated. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is shown to be mala fide. The Screening Committee also must be alive to the importance of the trust repose in it and must examine the candidate with utmost character.
* * *
17. In a catena of judgments, the importance of integrity and high standard of conduct in police force has been emphasized. As held in Mehar Singh case, the decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In the case in hand, there is nothing to suggest that the decision of the Screening Committee is mala fide. The decision of the Screening Committee that the respondents are not suitable for being appointed to the post of Constable does not call for interference. The Tribunal and the High Court, in our view, erred in setting aside the decision of the Screening Committee and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
The Supreme Court in the case of The State of M.P. and 10 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.6176/2018 Sanjeev Singh Jadon vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
others Vs. Bunty by order dated 14/3/2019 passed in Civil Appeal No.3046/2019 has held as under:-
"13. The law laid down in the aforesaid decisions makes it clear that in case of acquittal in a criminal case is based on the benefit of the doubt or any other technical reason. The employer can take into consideration all relevant facts to take an appropriate decision as to the fitness of an incumbent for appointment/continuance in service. The decision taken by the Screening Committee in the instant case could not have been faulted by the Division Bench."
The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh Pawar vs. State of M.P. reported in 2018 (2) MPJR 178 has held as under:-
" Decision of Criminal Court on the basis of compromise or an acquittal cannot be treated that the candidate possesses good character, which may make him eligible, as the criminal proceedings are with the view to find culpability of commission of offence whereas the appointment to the civil post is in view of his suitability to the post. The test for each of them is based upon different parameters and therefore, acquittal in a criminal case is not a certificate of good conduct to a candidate. The competent Authority has to take a decision in respect of the suitability of candidate to discharge the functions of a civil post and that mere acquittal in a criminal case would not be sufficient to infer that the candidate possesses good character. Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.P.No.5887/2016 (Arvind Gurjar vs. State of M.P.) is overruled. Another Division Bench judgment in W.A. No.367/2015 (Sandeep Pandey vs. State of M.P. and others) is also overruled. Jurisdiction of the High Court in a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is to examine the decision-making process than to act 11 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.6176/2018 Sanjeev Singh Jadon vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
as Court of appeal to substitute its own decision. In appropriate case, if the Court finds decision- making process is arbitrary or illegal, the Court will direct the Authority for reconsideration rather than to substitute the decision of the competent Authority with that of its own.
The expectations from a Judicial Officer are of much higher standard. There cannot be any compromise in respect of rectitude, honesty and integrity of a candidate who seeks appointment as Civil Judge. The personal conduct of a candidate to be appointed as Judicial Officer has to be free from any taint. The standard of conduct in the case of Judicial Officer is higher than that expected of an ordinary citizen and also higher than that expected of a professional in law as well. The same must be in tune with the highest standard of propriety and probity."
8. Thus if the facts of the present case are considered in the light of the judicial pronouncements in various judgments, it is clear that the petitioner had suppressed the material information with regard to registration of criminal case against him and, accordingly, where the petitioner has suppressed the material information, then the employer cannot be compelled to give him appointment on the post of Constable in Police Department. Further, for seeking employment in the Police Department, the candidate must be of impeccable character and integrity. Further swearing a false affidavit in itself is a serious matter which cannot be ignored. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents did not commit any mistake in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner.
12THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.6176/2018 Sanjeev Singh Jadon vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
9. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge (alok) Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR Date: 2021.03.25 15:53:45 +05'30'