Jitendra Singh Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 April, 2025

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Jitendra Singh Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 April, 2025

1. The present appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred by the appellant/petitioner being crestfallen by the order dated 28-08-2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.23398 of 2027 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that in pursuance to an advertisement issued by the respondents in the year 2016, appellant applied for the post of Constable (GD) in the Police Department. He appeared in the examinations and declared as a select candidate. The appointment order has been issued and he has been posted in District Ujjain. Thereafter, the process in relation to character verification took place in which appellant specifically mentioned that against him one 2 case was registered at Crime No.51/2014 at Police Station, Station Road, Morena for offence under Sections 294, 325, 341, 506-B and 34 of IPC. The Screening Committee without considering the genesis of crime and role of the appellant in the case, rejected the candidature of appellant and he has been declared unfit for the services of Police Department.

3. Aggrieved by the rejection of candidature, appellant has preferred writ petition which was dismissed by learned Single Judge holding that the acquittal of the appellant on the basis of compromise, cannot be presumed to be honourable acquittal and since Police Department is a disciplined uniform force; therefore, any person of criminal mindset may not be suitable in the Police Department. Therefore, appellant is before this Court.

4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the Screening Committee did not consider the material aspect of the matter and rejected the character verification of the appellant while the fact remains that the offences in which case has been registered, do not fall under moral turpitude.

5. It is further submitted that the Screening Committee failed to consider the nature of offence and extent of involvement of appellant into it. In the case in hand, appellant was not the main/prime accused and he was only auxiliary/co-accused. The genesis of crime was not seen by the respondents and in a very cursory manner declared the appellant unfit for the services of police department. The offences registered against the appellant were treated to be of moral turpitude by the respondents department while the offences registered against the appellant do not fall in the category of offences of moral turpitude, according to circular dated 24-07-2018 of State Government itself. Even offence 3 under Section 325 of IPC is taken out of list of offences involving moral turpitude.

6. It is further submitted that the Screening Committee did not consider each and every aspects of the matter and the evidence come on record and committed grave error in rejecting the candidature of appellant on the basis of registration of criminal case. On preferring writ petition, learned Single Judge also did not consider plight of the appellant and material aspects of the matter and dismissed the writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant refers the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 and submits that the said judgment talks about the objective consideration and once no objective consideration is shown by the departmental authority then it is for the Constitutional Court to invoke its jurisdiction for judicial review. He also relied upon the judgments of Division Bench passed in W.A.No.1954/2019 (Devendra Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and Others) dated 01- 05-2020 as well as in W.A.No.55/2023 (Monu Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) dated 24-07-2024 wherein the issue in relation to failure of character verification has been dealt with and the Court directed the respondents to consider the case of appellant.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents/ State opposed the prayer and submits that his entitlement or dis-entitlement for induction in the government service, will be subject to the nature of offence of the case and role played by the appellant. It is further contended that mere acquittal from serious charges would not confer any right to the appellant as it is the prerogative of the employer who would check the suitability of the candidate for the job. He supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

10. This is a case where appellant is seeking appointment on the post of Constable (GD). Prime allegation against the appellant is that he faced trial in a case where for alleged offence were under Sections 294, 325, 341, 506-B and 34 of IPC and acquittal was recorded on the basis of compromise reached between the parties. Therefore, prime concern of Police Department was institution of case against the appellant. Admittedly, appellant disclosed the fact regarding institution of trial and subsequent acquittal. Therefore, scope of consideration was whether in given set of facts, appellant was rightly denied the appointment or could have been considered for appointment.

11. Counsel for the appellant placed circular dated 24-07-2018 issued by the Home Department in respect of character verification and its application in such cases. In para 6(ii)(a) it has been referred that if the case against candidate is of ordinary nature and Court has convicted/acquitted him and if he has mentioned this fact in the verification form then he would be treated as eligible for appointment.

12. In fact, Genesis of Crime is also to be seen while taking decision over fate of an employee. Here, genesis of crime does not indicate wicked mind and mens rea to commit crime prima facie.

13. So far as the contention of respondents/State in relation to clean acquittal is concerned, there is no concept of clean acquittal in Cr.P.C. Respondents cannot deny the employment to the appellant merely on the ground that he was tried for some offences.

14. Application of any law is always meant for the prevailing time, social conditions and mores as well as surroundings in which it operates. In 5 the jurisdiction of this Court, many cases are registered at the instance of complainant with overtone of false implication or over implication. Many a times, a person who is serving in a government job is implicated as an accused and in many cases, a candidate preparing for government job or an aspirant, is also roped in as an accused so as to frustrate his future prospects. The Police Authorities which operate at ground level, are well versed with the ground reality and decipher each and every case with precaution and care because future prospects of a candidate to enter into government job ought not lie at the mercy of the complainant who may lodge false complaint at any time against any person.

15. If the authorities are swayed by the thought of mere registration of offence or mere conduct of the trial or acquittal or clean acquittal or otherwise, then they may be ignoring the 'LIFE' into that 'FILE because each 'FILE' has its own 'LIFE'. Here in the present case, in a case registered against the appellant, parties compromised the matter. When appellant came out acquitted and his innocence stood vindicated then department should not take such pedantic and hyper- technical view particularly when the offence as alleged against the appellant was not having the trappings of moral turpitude.

16. This Court in W.A. No.1954/2019 (Devendra Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and Others) decided on 01-05-2020 as well as in W.A.No.55/2023 (Monu Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) dated 24- 07-2024 discussed this aspect in detail and has considered impact of acquittal under Section 232 of Cr.P.C also. In paragraphs 6 to 11 of the said order, detail discussion was made about various contours of the subject matter. In the conspectus of facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner deserves re-consideration by the concerned authority 6 and therefore, petition deserves to be allowed.

17. Resultantly, impugned order dated 10-07-2017 (Annexure P/6) passed by respondents as well as order dated 28-08-2024 passed in Writ Petition No.23398/2017 by the learned Writ Court pale into oblivion. Accordingly set aside. Appeal stands allowed. Matter is remanded back to the respondents to reconsider the case of appellant afresh in the light of the judgments of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India (supra) and this Court in W.A. No.1954/2019 (Devendra Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and Others), W.A.No.55/2023 (Monu Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) as well as directions issued by this Court today so that objective consideration can be made while deciding the case of the appellant.

18. It is expected from the concerned authority that it shall take into consideration the Genesis of Crime and the judgment passed by the trial Court, then apply the allegations in peculiar social conditions of the area as well as facts and circumstances of the case holistically. Thereafter reasoned order be passed with objectivity. Needful be done within two months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.

19. Appeal stands allowed in above terms.

                                        (ANAND PATHAK)                          (HIRDESH)
  Anil*                                     JUDGE                                 JUDGE


ANIL       Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA



KUMAR
           DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
           BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
           PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,

2.5.4.20=8512f40a1a9eaa50b6802d068b51dae27e84 c266b09d283f0799e67cdc7df50f, CHAURASI postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=EC534CBB3B245F050119F06F4A296D D83C765A1E2ACC6EC7D8BD8CBCC9C2446E, cn=ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA Date: 2025.05.22 13:42:32 +05'30' YA

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court