Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 April, 2022
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 26th OF APRIL, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 16866 of 2012
Between:-
MAHESH KUMAR S/O JHANAKLAL UAIKE , AGED
ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION: VILL.KESHLAI
POLICE CHOWKI DORA P.S.RUPJHAR, TAH.
BAIHAR, DISTT. BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRADEEP NAVERIYA, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH TH:THE
SECRETARY POLICE (HOME) DEPT. MANTRALAYA
VALLABH BHAWAN,BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEAD
OFFICE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE JABALPUR
RANGE (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MISS SHWETA YADAV, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
T h is petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Since pleadings are complete, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the petition is heard finally.
By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is claiming that the order dated 31.07.2012 (Annexure P/1) be quashed and appropriate direction be given to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to provide him appointment either on post of Home Guard or on the post of Police Constable as per the qualification possessed by him in accordance with the policy dated 8th December, 1997 framed by the State Government.
Signature Not Verified2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government has SAN Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2022.04.29 17:10:49 IST framed a policy dated 8th December, 1997 for providing rehabilitation to the 2 naxalites, who have surrendered and to such persons who are the victim of naxalism and also to the persons living below poverty line and are affected by naxalism. He submits that Clause 15 of the Policy provides that if any person has given special cooperation to the police in the operation against naxalites and because of that there is a real threat to the safety of his property and life then the Superintendent of Police after obtaining consent from the Dy. Inspector General of Police can appoint such person on the post of Constable. For appointment of a person on the post of Constable, the Incharge of Naxal Zone would be competent. The provision of this Clause would apply only to the persons of general public, who have given a special cooperation in the operation against naxalites or on their own level saved the lives of general public and also fought for saving the government/private property. It is also provided in the policy that if a person claiming appointment is having a criminal past then he would not be eligible and suitable to be appointed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the document Annexure P/1, it is evident that from 22.08.1997 to 11.02.2002 the petitioner was posted as a Secrete Soldier/Hidden Informer in the Police Department at Balaghat, but due to breach of confidentiality of secret soldiers including petitioner in the Balaghat region, for safety purpose he was transferred to Seoni and he worked at Seoni from 11.02.2002 to 02.06.2003 on the new nomenclature of the post as 'Swayamsevi Sainik'. Thereafter, on character verification, it was found that a case was registered against him on 26.12.2001 under Crime No. 160/2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 454 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequent to registration of the said crime, the petitioner was removed from the said post on 09.06.2003. He submits that on 16.01.2004 the petitioner was acquitted of the charges levelled against him under Sections 456 and 354 of IPC under Crime No. 160/2001.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was working as a Hidden Informer/Secrete Soldier in the Police Department at Balaghat and he Signature Not Verified used to collect the information about the activities of naxalites putting his life in SAN Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA danger. He submits that on 07.04.2005, on the information given by the petitioner, SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2022.04.29 17:10:49 IST a hardcore absconded naxlaite Puranlal was arrested against whom Crime No. 3 53/54/04 was registered in the Police Station Paraswada for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 436, 576, 120B and 506B of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that the said naxalite Puranlal was also wanted in Crime No. 209/2001 registered at Police Station Baihar for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 436 and 120B and a reward of Rs. 5000/- was also announced against him by the police.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter petitioner made representations on 13.12.2004 and 23.02.2005 (Annexure P/4 and P/5) to the Director General of Police Bhopal requesting therein that looking to his commendable job in the operation against naxalites and looking to real threat to his life and also to his family members, as per the provision of policy he may be appointed on the post of Constable. When the representations of the petitioner were not decided by the authority, the petitioner preferred a writ petition i.e. WPS No. 2815/2005 before the High Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 10.03.2005 directing authority to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner within four months in accordance with law. After disposal of the said writ petition, the Superintendent of Police, Balaghat wrote a letter dated 01.07.2005 (Annexure P/4) to the Director, Home Guard, Jabalpur for considering reinstatement of the petitioner in service as Home Guard Sainik in pursuance to the order dated 10.03.2005 passed by the High Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the document Annexure P/1 it is also apparent that the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Constable was recommended by the Station House Officer, Naxalite Cell, Balaghat to Superintendent of Police and some appointment order was also issued by the Superintendent of Police, Balaghat in favour of the petitioner and sent for its approval to the Higher Authority, but, after scrutiny of the case of the petitioner, it was opined by the authority that the case of the petitioner was not found in accordance with the criteria fixed for appointment and accordingly he was not found suitable to be appointment and the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 31.07.2012.
Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2022.04.29 17:10:49 IST7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly argued that Clause 15 of 4 the Policy clearly provides that if any person has given special cooperation to the police in the operation against naxalites and because of that there is a real threat to the safety of his property and life then the Superintendent of Police after obtaining consent from the Dy. Inspector General of Police can appoint such person on the post of Constable. He has contended that petitioner was as a Hidden Informer of the police at Balaghat and used to give information about the activities of the naxalites. He submits that on the information of the petitioner, a hardcore naxalite namely, Puranlal was arrested against whom reward of Rs.5000/- was also announced, therefore, the work done by the petitioner apparently comes under Clause 15 of the Policy and he is entitled to be appointed suitably as per the qualification possessed by him, although his claim has been rejected on the ground of registration of crime against him.
8. Reply has been filed by the respondents mainly taking stand therein that since the petitioner was arrested in pursuance to registration of crime against him under Crime No. 160/2001 registered at Police Station Rupjhar, District Balaghat for the offence punishable under Sections 456 and 354 of IPC, therefore as per the provision of Regulation 54 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulation, his claim for appointment on the post of Constable was rightly rejected by the authority.
9. In rebuttal to the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the petitioner was facing the criminal trial, but, he was honourably acquitted from the charge levelled against him. He submits that he has also filed the order passed by the competent court acquitting the petitioner as Annexure P/5 dated 16.01.2004 and the respondents have denied the appointment to the petitioner for the reason that he was not found suitable to be appointed because a criminal case was registered against him.
10. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, the core question which arises in the present petition is whether the decision of the authority rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on a suitable post, when there was no allegation of malice against the the authority and the petitioner was Signature Not Verified acquitted of serious charges, inter alia, of outraging modesty of a woman etc. as SAN Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and there were contradictions in their SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2022.04.29 17:10:49 IST statements, ought to have been interfered with or not.
511. From the analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the petitioner has worked with the Police Department as a Hidden Informer/Secret Soldier for a long time and has given special cooperation to the Police in the operations against naxalites and on his information a hardcore naxalite namely, Puranlal, who was absconding and a reward was also announced against him, was got arrested. It is also evident from the record that the case of the petitioner was forwarded with recommendation by the SHO Naxal Zone to the Superintendent of Police for his appointment on a suitable post and some orders in favour of the petitioner were also issued, but, in between, a criminal case got registered against him, although he was acquitted in the said case as the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and there were contradiction in their statements and also that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. While the case of the petitioner was being considered for appointment, his character verification was got done in which it was found that a criminal case was registered against him and for that the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the authority. The respondents have also supported the stand of the authority and submitted the appointment of the petitioner cannot be made only on the basis of recommendation and the same has to be done on the basis of suitability/eligibility of the candidate. The case of the petitioner has been considered strictly in terms of the Regulation 54 of the Police Regulation and has rightly been rejected by the authority on the ground that he had criminal past in his account.
12. Thus, from the above there is not an iota of doubt that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the authority on the ground of suitability and not on the ground of eligibility for which judicial review is not open to challenge the said decision of the authority. The judicial review can be entertained and maintained only in the case where the candidate is not found to be eligible to be appointed. The employer has every aright to consider the suitability of the candidate as per government orders/instructions/rules/policy at the time of taking decision for induction of the candidate in the employment. The acquittal of the candidate on Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2022.04.29 17:10:49 IST technical ground in respect of the offences of heinous/serious nature, which is not 6 clean acquittal, the employer may have a right to consider all relevant facts available as to the antecedents and may take appropriate decision. Here in this case, question of suitability of the petitioner has been raised on account of registration of criminal case against him.
13. Recently, the Supreme Court while dealing with the similar issue in the case of Union of India and others vs. Methu Meda reported in [2022(1) MPLJ] 224, referring catena of decisions on the point, has observed that the candidate who wishes to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude and have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents would not be fit in this category. The Supreme Court also observed that if a person is acquitted giving him benefit of doubt, from the charge of an offence involving moral turpitude or because the witnesses turned hostile, it would not automatically entitle him for employment, that too in a disciplined force.
14. In view of the discussion made hereinabove and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Methu Meda (supra) and the fact that the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the authority on the ground of suitability to be appointed on the ground of registration of criminal case against him and he was not acquitted cleanly as the prosecution witnesses turned hostile, I am of the considered view that the authority has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner.
15. The petition has no force of law and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE RAGHVENDRA Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2022.04.29 17:10:49 IST