Madhya Pradesh High Court
Braj Kishor Dhakad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 March, 2024
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 11 th OF MARCH, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 25983 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
BRAJ KISHOR DHAKAD S/O SHRI NARAYAN SINGH
DHAKAD, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED R/O VILLAGE CHEER KHEDA POST AND
THANA MYANA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT GUNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI D.S. RAGHUVANSHI AND SHRI ASHWANI JOHRI - ADVOCATES)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
HOME, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE
HEADQUARTERS, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAVINDRA DIXIT - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
(i) That, the impugned order dated 21-08-2023 (Annexure P/1) be directed to be quashed.
(ii) That, the respondents be directed to grant appointment to the petitioner on the post of ASI (LDC) with all consequential benefits from the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA Signing time: 3/11/2024 7:57:11 PM 2 date the other persons have been granted appointment out of same selection, including arrears of salary and seniority etc.
(iii) That, other relief which is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.
2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent authority has caused illegality in considering the case of petitioner in the light of judgment of Apex Court in the case of Avatar Singh Vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 and other judgments passed by this Court from time to time. It is further submitted that petitioner applied for the post of ASI (Ministerial) in Police Department.Three cases were registered against the petitioner at Police Station Myana District Guna;
i. Crime No.29/2010 for offence under Sections 323, 294, 506-B, 34 of IPC, in this case petitioner was acquitted, ii. Crime No.57/2012 for offence under Sections 323, 341, 506-B, 34 and Sections 324 and 326 were also enhanced, in this prosecution witnesses/complainant side declared hostile, therefore, petitioner was acquitted, iii. Crime No.291/2015 for offence under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC in which Khatma report was filed by Police.
Therefore, petitioner deserves employment and employer did not consider the cases holistically and mandate of the Apex Court.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that one case is of grievous nature where offence of Section 326 of IPC was alleged against the petitioner vide crime No.57/2012. In the said case, victim sustained 11 injuries and fracture was caused to him. Although petitioner was acquitted but it was not clean acquittal. Prosecution witnesses turned hostile. Similarly in the case Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA Signing time: 3/11/2024 7:57:11 PM 3 registered at crime No.29/2010, he was acquitted. Total three cases were registered against him which shows criminal bent of mind. Sufficient compliance has been made as per the directions of this Court when matter was referred for consideration to the respondents.
4. Heard.
5. This is a case where petitioner is seeking direction for consideration of his name to the post of ASI (Ministerial) in the Police Department on the basis of alleged incorrect interpretation by the respondent authority reflected vide Annexure P/1.
6. Here, it appears that petitioner faced allegations in three cases as referred above. One case includes allegation in respect of offence under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC also. In that case because of witnesses turned hostile, benefit of acquittal was given. Therefore, the authorities have rightly considered the aspect of criminal antecedents and nature of allegations and rejected the candidature of petitioner. No other point was pressed.
7. Petitioner cannot be considered for the job in Police Department. Discretion of employer cannot be interfered with by this Court unless cogent documents/evidence is available on record.
8. In the conspectus of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any flaw in the impugned order passed by the respondents.
Hence, interference is declined. Accordingly, the petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK) Signature Not Verified JUDGE Signed by: ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA Signing time: 3/11/2024 7:57:11 PM 4 Anil* Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA Signing time: 3/11/2024 7:57:11 PM