Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Yogesh Choudhary on 13 October, 2020
Author: Sanjay Yadav
Bench: Sanjay Yadav, Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1
WA-594-2020
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
(Division Bench)
Heard through Video Conferencing
Writ Appeal No.594/2020
State of Madhya Pradesh and others ... Appellants
versus
Yogesh Choudhary ... Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Anand Bernard, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
appellants/State and its functionaries.
Shri Lalji Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Yadav, Acting Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Judge
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Date of decision : 13.10.2020
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ORDER
Per Sanjay Yadav, ACJ :-
The State of Madhya Pradesh and its functionaries take exception to order dated 04.07.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.6421/2019.
2. The Writ Petition was directed against the order dated 17.10.2018; whereby, the petitioner was informed that he has been 2 WA-594-2020 found disqualified for police service for the reason that the offence was registered against him under Section 354 of IPC and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act').
3. The petitioner having successfully participated in Police Constable Recruitment Test in the year 2017 was placed in the select list of Constable (Driver). The petitioner was allotted the unit under Superintendent of Police, District Harda. The petitioner submitted an affidavit for police verification disclosing the information relating to Criminal Case No.234/2014 registered against him for an offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act and his acquittal thereof vide judgment dated 12.08.2014 passed in Sessions Trial No.188/2014. The petitioner appeared before the Screening Committee on 21.08.2018; whereon, vide order/communication dated 17.10.2018, he was informed that because of offence registered against him involved moral turpitude, he was not eligible to be recruited in disciplined force.
4. On its challenge, learned Single Judge, after perusing the judgment passed in Sessions Trial No.188/2014 and following the 3 WA-594-2020 principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohammed Imran vs State of Maharashtra and others passed in Civil Appeal No.10571/2018 reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 1943, observed :
"11. Looking to the nature of allegations made against the petitioner on the basis of which offence was registered against him and thereafter, his acquittal on the basis of the statement given by the witnesses before the Court, it is clear that no case of even moral turpitude is made out against him. The statement of the prosecutrix has been discussed by the trial Court in paragraph-10 which makes it clear that there was no intention of the petitioner to commit any crime and as such, he has been acquitted honorably and that was the solitary criminal case against him and he has disclosed the details regarding registration of the case and about his acquittal."
5. Consequently, learned Single Judge proceeded to set aside the order dated 17.10.2018 and remitted the matter back to the Competent Authority to reconsider the claim of the petitioner and to pass an appropriate order in view of the existing facts and circumstances of the case.
6. The State of Madhya Pradesh and its functionaries take exception on the ground that the petitioner being tried of the offences under Section 354 of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act 4 WA-594-2020 involving moral turpitude, learned Single Judge was not justified in setting aside the order dated 17.10.2018 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner and directing for reconsideration of his claim.
7. Close reading of order dated 17.10.2018 and its appreciation by learned Single Judge reveal that the conclusion arrived at by the Appointing Authority was on the basis of judgment dated 12.08.2014 passed by trial Court in Sessions Trial No.188/2014. Close reading whereof and, more particularly Para 10 of the judgment, would reveal that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge under Section 354 of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act as none of the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution story, which led learned trial Judge to record following findings :
^^10- vfHk;ksD=h ¼v-lk-2-½ dk dguk gS fd og] fnukad 23-06-014 dks nksigj yxHkx nks&<kbZ cts vius [ksr ls /kku ds jksik dh j[kokyh djds vius ?kj [kkuk [kkus ds fy, okil vk jgh Fkh] rc es<+ ij fdpM+ gksus ds dkj.k ls vfHk;qDr jkgqy dk iSj fQly x;k Fkk] ftlds dkj.k ls mls /kDdk yx x;k FkkA vfHk;qDr jkgqy us cqjh fu;r ls tcjnLrh mldk gkFk ughas idM+k gS vkSj u gh mlds xys esa gkFk Mkyk gS vkSj u gh mls dgha pydj ckr djus ds fy, dgk gSA ,slk gh Jherh cbZth pkS/kjh ¼v-lk-1-½ larks"k pkS/kjh ¼v-lk- 3½ tks fd Øe'k% vfHk;ksD=h ds ekrk o firk gS] dk Hkh dguk gS fd mudh iq=h ¼vfHk;ksD=h vk-lk-2-½ tc ?kj vk jgh Fkh rks jkLrs esa vfHk;qDr dk iSj fQly x;k Fkk] ftlds dkj.k ls vfHk;ksD=h dks 5 WA-594-2020 /kDdk yx x;k Fkk vkSj vfHk;qDr us cqjh fu;r ls vfHk;ksD=h dk gkFk ugha idM+k vkSj u gh xys esa gkFk Mkyk gSA dfiy ¼v-lk-6½ tks fd ?kVuk ekSds dk p{kqn'khZ lk{kh gS] us Hkh vfHk;kstu dgkuh dk leFkZu ugha fd;k gSA vfHk;ksD=h ¼v-lk-2-½ us fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih-2 dFku izn'kZ ih-4 ,oa ih-5 esa of.kr rF;ksa dks Lo;a ds }kjk] fyf[k, tkus ls bUdkj dh gS] ftlds dkj.k ls izn'kZ ih-2- izn'kZ ih-4 ,oa izn'kZ ih-5 esa of.kZr ;g rF; lkfcr ugha gksrs gSa fd tc vfHk;ksD=h [kkuk [kkus ds fy, ?kj tk jgh Fkh rks jkLrs esa] ?kVuk ds le;] ?kVuk ekSds ij vfHk;qDr us cqjh fu;r ls tcjnLrh mldk gkFk idM+ fy;k Fkk vkSj mlds xys esa gkFk Mkydj dgk Fkk fd pyks ckr djrs gSA Jherh cbZth pkS/kjh ¼v-lk-1½ ,oa larks"k pkS/kjh ¼v-lk-3½ us Øe'k% dFku izn'kZ ih-1 ,oa dFku izn'kZ ih-6 esa of.kZr rF;ksa dks iqfyl ds le{k izdV fd, tkus ls bUdkj fd;k gS] ftlls izn'kZ ih-1 ,oa izn'kZ ih-6 esa of.kZr rF; lkfcr ugha gksrs gSaA ,slh lk{; dh fLFkfr esa eqds'k dqekj frokjh ¼vk-lk-5½ dk ;g dFku fo'okl ds ;ksX; gksuk ugha ik;k tkrk gS fd mls] vfHk;ksD=h ¼v-lk-2½ us ;g crk;k Fkk fd tc og ¼vfHk;ksD=h½] [ksr ls ?kj okil vk jgh Fkh rc] vfHk;qDr us cqjh fu;r ls mldk gkFk idM+dj ds mlds xys esa gkFk Mkydj ds mls vius ikl cSBus ds fy, dgk FkkA bl izdkj mijksDr lk{; ls vfHk;kstu dgkuh dks dksbZ cy ugha feyrk gSA^^
8. Evident it is from the findings recorded by the trial Court that the story as led by the prosecution in support of the charges under Section 354 of IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act were not established. Yet, the Screening Committee concluded that the case registered against the petitioner involves moral turpitude and found the petitioner ineligible for appointment in disciplined force.6
WA-594-2020 However, the Screening Committee did not notice any other criminal case against the petitioner.
9. The question is, in these given fact situation, was the Screening Committee justified in holding that the petitioner is ineligible for appointment because of registration of case involving moral turpitude? In Mohd. Imran (supra), it is held that there cannot be any mechanical, rheotorical, incantation of moral turpitude. It was observed :
"10. ... In our opinion, no reasonable person on the basis of the materials placed before us can come to the conclusion that the antecedents and character of the appellant are such that he is unfit to be appointed as a judicial officer. An alleged single misadventure or misdemeanour of the present nature, if it can be considered to be so, cannot be sufficient to deny appointment to the appellant when he has on all other aspects and parameters been found to be fit for appointment. The Law is well settled in this regard in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471. If empanelment creates no right to appointment, equally there can be no arbitrary denial of appointment after empanelment.
11. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the consideration of the candidature of the appellant and its rejection are afflicted by a myopic vision, blurred by the spectacle of what has been described as moral turpitude, reflecting 7 WA-594-2020 inadequate appreciation and application of facts also, as justice may demand."
10. When the order dated 17.10.2018 and its elaborate analysis by learned Single Judge vide order dated 04.07.2019 is tested on the anvil of above analysis, we do not perceive any error of law committed by learned Single Judge in setting aside the order dated 17.10.2018 rejecting candidature of the petitioner and remitting the matter to the Competent Authority for reconsideration of his claim.
11. Since the order dated 04.07.2019 passed by learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with, we decline indulgence.
12. Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(Sanjay Yadav) (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Acting Chief Justice Judge
vinod
Digitally signed by
VINOD VISHWAKARMA
Date: 2020.10.16
15:26:09 +05'30'