Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shishupal Singh Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 August, 2024
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:158
1 WP-680-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 21st OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 680 of 2021
SHISHUPAL SINGH RAJPUT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nirmal Sharma - Advocate for petitioner through V.C.
Shri Jubin Prasad - Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 19.11.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondents/authorities whereby the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) has been rejected owing to the fact that there was a previous criminal case registered against him.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2017 -2018, recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) was initiated. The petitioner participated in the aforesaid selection process. He was successful in clearing the examination and accordingly he was appointed on the post of Constable (GD). After selection and appointment, he served the department with utmost devotion and sincerity. At the time of seeking appointment, he submitted a character verification form in which the petitioner has not disclosed the information about the previous criminal case but when he was apprised about the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 09-01-2025 11:36:54 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:158 2 WP-680-2021 mandatory disclosure condition, he immediately filed an affidavit on 23.05.2018 before the authorities disclosing the factum of previous criminal case. The verification process was initiated in the year 2019 and it is an admitted position that prior to verification of the petitioner, the said information regarding registration of a criminal case was supplied to the department. The department without considering the aforesaid fact and on the ground of non-disclosure of the information in the form, cancelled the appointment order of the petitioner vide order dated 10.10.2019. The said order was put to challenge by filing a writ petition bearing W.P.No.22900 of 2019 wherein the case of the petitioner was directed to be considered in the light of the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471 and also in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar. In compliance of the said order, the authorities again considered the case of the petitioner and rejected the same on the ground of assumption and presumption about non- suitability of an employee because of his previous criminal case. Another ground which has been taken as reflected from the rejection order is that the petitioner does not disclose antecedents in the character verification form.
3. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that if the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) is considered, then there are specific directions were issued for consideration of cases which are trivial in nature, although the conviction recorded, will not render an incumbent unfit for appointment. It was further provided that if acquittal has already been recorded, then all relevant facts available as to Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 09-01-2025 11:36:54 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:158 3 WP-680-2021 antecedents were required to be considered. It is further argued that the authorities have considered the circular 24.05.2018 but have not considered the circular 24.07.2018 which in force wherein it was specifically provided that in case of offence alleged falling in purview of moral turpitude, then acquittal and background of employee/candidate will be considered. The offence registered against the petitioner under Section 294 , 506-B and 323 in alternative 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code is trivial in nature and since the complainant was a member of reserved community therefore charge under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was also levied. The petitioner has subsequently been acquitted for the alleged offence specifically observing that the prosecution has failed to proved the offence against the petitioner. Therefore, the candidature of the petitioner should not have been rejected.
4. It is further submitted that what amounts to moral turpitude and what amounts to acquittal in case of prosecution fails to proves the case beyond reasonable doubt, has to be considered by the authorities in terms of the subsequent circular dated 24.07.2018. The authorities are required to consider the fact that whether the offence falls under the purview of the moral turpitude; the background of the employee/candidate as well as his role in the commission of offence. None of the aforesaid aspects have been considered by the authorities while passing the impugned order and rejected the candidature of the petitioner. Therefore, he has sought interference by this Court in the impugned order. He has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India , Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 09-01-2025 11:36:54 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:158 4 WP-680-2021 reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471; Ravindra Kumar vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024 (5) SCC 264; Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India reported in 2022 Livelaw SC 441; Mohd. Imran vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2018 SC 489 and Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India reported in 2023 (7) SCC 536 in support of his contentions.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has filed a response to the petition denying all the averments. It is contended that the petitioner after facing the examination was duly selected and appointed. The appointment order was issued on 30.05.2018 on the post of Constable (GD) in terms of the directions contained in the letter dated 24.05.2018 issued by the respondent no.2 wherein it was clearly mentioned that the said appointment order has been issued subject to character verification, after obtaining the affidavit to the effect that no criminal case is registered against him nor previously registered. It is because of this reason, the affidavit has been submitted by the petitioner disclosing the criminal case vide affidavit dated 23.05.2018, Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the petitioner has disclosed the information about the criminal case prior to character verification. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioner and the complainant entered into a compromise during the pendency of the criminal case, as a result of which, the offences under Sections 323, 294 & 506-B of the Indian Penal Code were compoundable and for the offence under Section Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 09-01-2025 11:36:54 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:158 5 WP-680-2021 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act, the complainant turned hostile, resulting into acquittal of the petitioner. Thus, it is clear that it cannot be said to be an clear and honorable acquittal of the petitioner. It is not a failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, rather for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, the compounding was permitted and for the offence punishable under the SC/ST Act, the complainant turned hostile. The petitioner at the time of filling up the character verification form has furnished the incorrect information. He has mentioned "no" against the column no.12 in the character verification form which deals with the content that whether any criminal case is registered against a candidate or not. He has specifically answered 'no', meaning thereby, he has furnished a wrong information to the authorities and has chosen not to disclose the registration of a criminal case against him. It is only when an affidavit was required to be submitted by him giving a declaration regarding his criminal antecedents, he has disclosed the aforesaid fact. It is further contended that mere acquittal in a criminal case based upon a compromise as well as complainant declaring hostile, does not amount to a clean acquittal, even otherwise, it is the domain of the employer to consider the candidature of a candidate. Placing reliance upon judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra); Union Territory, Chandigarh vs. Pradeep Kumar reported in (2018) 1 SCC 797; Commission of Police vs. Mehar Singh reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685; State of M.P. and others vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar (Civil Appeal No.11356 of 2018) as well as a judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh vs. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 09-01-2025 11:36:54 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:158 6 WP-680-2021 High Court of M.P. reported in 2018 (2) MPLJ 419, he has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. From the perusal of the record, it is seen that the petitioner had applied for the post of Constable (GD) in the recruitment process of the Police Department. The petitioner was selected and appointed on 30.05.2018. The appointment order was issued in terms of the directions contained in the letter dated 24.05.2018 issued by the respondent no.2 wherein it was clearly mentioned that the said appointment order has been issued subject to character verification, after obtaining the affidavit to the effect that no criminal case is registered against him nor previously registered. Thereafter, the affidavit has been submitted by the petitioner disclosing the criminal case vide affidavit dated 23.05.2018. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294 and 506- B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioner and the complainant entered into a compromise during the pendency of the criminal case, as a result of which, the offences under Sections 323, 294 & 506-B of the Indian Penal Code were compounded and for offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act, the complainant turned hostile, resulting into acquittal of the petitioner. Thus, it is clear that it is not a clear and honorable acquittal of the petitioner neither it is a failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. Rather for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code the compounding was Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 09-01-2025 11:36:54 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:158 7 WP-680-2021 permitted and for the offence punishable under the SC/ST Act, the complainant turned hostile. The department cancelled the appointment order of the petitioner vide order dated 10.10.2019 which was put to challenge by filing a writ petition bearing W.P.No.22900 of 2019 wherein the case of the petitioner was directed to be considered in the light of the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) as well as in the case of Abhijit Singh Pawar (supra). In compliance of the said order, the authorities again considered the case of the petitioner and rejected the same. The petitioner at the time of filling up the character verification form has furnished the incorrect information. He has mentioned "no" against the column no.12 in the character verification form, meaning thereby, he has furnished a wrong information to the authorities and has chosen not to disclose the registration of a criminal case against him. It is only when an affidavit was required to be submitted by him giving a declaration regarding his criminal antecedent, he has disclosed the aforesaid fact.
8. Mere acquittal in a criminal case based upon a compromise as well as complainant declaring hostile, does not amount to a clean acquittal and it is the domain of the employer to consider the candidature of a candidate. The law with respect to the aforesaid effect is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in large number of cases including that of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471 wherein, in para 38 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :-
"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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 09-01-2025 11:36:54 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:158 8 WP-680-2021 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".
9. The aforesaid aspect of the case was further considered by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh Pawar Vs. High Court of M.P. reported in 2018 (2) MPLJ 419 wherein the Court has held as under :-
"32. ...... Decision of criminal case 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."
10. The aforesaid aspect was again considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Union of India Vs. Methu Meda reported in (2022) 1 SCC 1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the judgment passed in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) and has held as under :-
"17. The law with regard to the effect and consequence of the acquittal, concealment of criminal case on appointments etc. has been settled in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), wherein a three Judge Bench of this Court decided, as thus:
"38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus:Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 09-01-2025 11:36:54 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:158 9 WP-680-2021 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 c ircumstances 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 3 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.Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 09-01-2025 11:36:54 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:158 10 WP-680-2021 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 candidature or terminating services as appointment of a 4 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 5 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.
18. In view of the above, in the facts of the present case, as per paras 38.3, 38.4.3 and 38.5, it is clear that the employer is having right to consider the suitability of the candidate as per government orders/instructions/rules at the time of taking the decision for induction of the candidate in employment."
11. Thus, it is clear that mere acquittal of the candidate in a criminal case Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 09-01-2025 11:36:54 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:158 11 WP-680-2021 does not automatically entitle him for the recruitment to the post of Constable in the Police Department, still the authorities can consider the effect and consequence of registration of the criminal case as well as acquittal. He has not disclosed the fact of pendency of criminal case to the authorities at the time of filling of application form.Therefore, in view of the aforesaid pronouncement of law, this Court is of the considered opinion that no illegality is committed by the authorities in holding the petitioner ineligible for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) in the Police Department.
1 2 . Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police Vs. Mehar Singh reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685 has considered the aspect that police force is a disciplined force shouldering the great responsibility of maintaining the law and order in the society. The people repose great faith and confidence in them. In such circumstances, the person having a criminal antecedent will not fit in this category, even if he is acquitted. It is the domain and within the discretion of the employer to grant him appointment or not. In case the employer is having a better option and a better candidate he can always opt for appointment of a better candidate having no criminal past. Similarly in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs Parvez Khan reported in (2015) 2 SCC 591, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that candidate to be recruited to police service must be worthy of confidence of utmost rectitude and must have impeccable character and integrity. Person having criminal antecedents would not fit into said category since even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was completely exonerated. Persons likely to erode credibility of police ought not Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 09-01-2025 11:36:54 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:158 12 WP-680-2021 to enter police force. The petitioner has suppressed the material information regarding the registration of criminal case against him and second that he has been acquitted based upon the compromise. It is not a honourable acquittal, therefore, the case of the petitioner is directly hit by the judgment passed by the larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra).
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court again in the case of State (UT of Chandigarh) vs Pradeep Kumar 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 relevant information or false information in regard to criminal prosecution, arrest or pendency of criminal case(s) against the candidate, in Avtar Singh vs Union of India and Others reported in (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), -
''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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 09-01-2025 11:36:54 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:158 13 WP-680-2021 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."
14. In view of the settled legal proposition of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no benefit can be extended to the petitioner. It is within the domain of the employer to consider the candidature of the candidates like the writ petitioner. The employer cannot be compelled to grant appointment to an employee. The employee is having no indefeasible right to ask for appointment in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The respondents/authorities have rightly appreciated the aforesaid aspects of the case and the order impugned has rightly been passed which does not call for any interference in the present writ petition.
15. The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE sj Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 09-01-2025 11:36:54 AM