Madhya Pradesh High Court
Darshan Singh Sikarwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 September, 2019
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
WP 29303/2018
Darshan Singh Sikarwar vs. State of MP and Others
Gwalior, dt. 09/09/2019
Shri Navnidhi Parharya, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri RK Soni, Government Advocate for the respondents/ State.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashment of the order 06/12/2018 (Annexure P1), by which the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Constable (Driver) in the Police Department has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner had criminal antecedents and acquittal of the petitioner in those cases cannot be said to be honourable.
(2) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that in the year 2013 an advertisement was issued for appointment on various posts in Home (Police) Department in the State of Madhya Pradesh including post of Constable (Driver). The petitioner also applied for the post of Constable (Driver). The petitioner was declared successful in all the tests. The successful candidates were called for document verification and physical measurement and the petitioner was also declared qualified in physical verification. On 05/08/2013, the petitioner submitted his verification form as well as his affidavit. After completion of formalities, the case of petitioner was scrutinized by the screening committee and accordingly, the petitioner was found to be unfit for the post of Constable (Driver). Thereafter, a letter dated 15/01/2014 was 2 issued and the petitioner was directed to appear before the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Special Branch (Security), Police Headquarters, Bhopal. The petitioner appeared before the Assistant Inspector General of Police and submitted that he has been acquitted from all the criminal cases which were registered against him. It was further mentioned that initially, the petitioner was made an accused in Crime No.192 of 2013, which was registered at Police Station Hazira, District Gwalior. However, after due investigation, the name of the petitioner was dropped as there was no evidence against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed that his candidature has been rejected on the ground of criminal antecedents and accordingly, the order dated 07/04/2014 was passed thereby rejecting his candidature. The order dated 07/04/2014 was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition before this Court which was registered as WP No. 3112/2014 and the said writ petition was allowed by this Court by order dated 02/11/2017, with the following observations:-
''Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Constable without any foundation cannot be given the stamp of approval. Consequently, the impugned order dated 07/04/2014 is set aside.
Respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Constable and pass the consequential order. Petitioner, however, shall not not be entitled for the back-wages, but he will be entitled for counting his seniority from the date his immediate senior in the merit list is appointed.'' (3) Unfortunately, during this period, an allegation was made that the 3 petitioner while driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, had caused an accident as a result of which one unclaimed cow died on the spot. Crime No.713 of 2016 was registered for offence under Sections 279 and 429 of IPC. The petitioner was tried for the above-mentioned offence and all the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and by judgment dated 23/06/2017, the petitioner has been acquitted from all the charges.
(4) It is further submitted that in compliance of the direction given by this Court by order dated 02/11/2017 passed in Writ Petition No.3112 of 2014, the respondents have once again reconsidered the candidature of the petitioner and thereafter also considered the FIR in Crime No.713/2016 which was registered for offence under Sections 279, 429 of IPC and once again held that the acquittal of the petitioner was not honourable and thus, he is not fit for appointment. (5) Challenging the impugned order passed by the respondents, it is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has been acquitted from all the charges, therefore, it is incorrect to say that the acquittal of the petitioner was not honourable. Although it is fairly conceded by the Counsel for the petitioner that at least in two cases i.e. in Crime No.713/2016 and Crime No.26/2013, he was acquitted as the witness have turned hostile. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that once the petitioner has been acquitted, then it has to be treated as honourable for all practical purposes and, therefore, the 4 respondents have wrongly rejected the candidature of the petitioner. (6) To buttress his contention, the Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 05/03/2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mukesh Singh Tomar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [Writ Appeal No.1248 of 2018] and the order dated 29/10/2018 passed in the case of Ramvaran Singh Gurjar vs. State of MP & Others [Writ Appeal No.1257 of 2018] as well as the order dated 07/08/2018 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Neeraj Sharma vs. State of MP [Writ Petition No.21647 of 2017], the order dated 04/07/2019 passed in the case of Yogesh Choudhary vs. State of MP and Others [Writ Petition No.6421 of 2019], the order dated 02/01/2019 passed by this Court in the case of Yogesh Bharti vs. State of MP and Others [ Writ Petition No.2196 of 2017].
(7) Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that the petitioner had applied for the post of Constable (Driver) and after the verification of his character, it was found that he had caused an accident in which one cow had lost her life. The petitioner is seeking his appointment to the post of Constable (Driver) but when he was tried for offence of driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner thereby causing death of cattle, then the respondents did not commit any mistake in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. It is submitted that where a 5 person has been acquitted because of the fact that the witnesses have turned hostile, then the said acquittal cannot be said to be honourable. (8) Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties.
(9) The Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar, passed in Civil Appeal No. 11356 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (c) No.17404 of 2016) by judgment dtd. 26th November, 2018 has observed as under:-
''14. In Avtar Singh (supra), though this Court was principally concerned with the question as to non-disclosure or wrong disclosure of information, it was observed in paragraph 38.5 that even in cases where a truthful disclosure about a concluded case was made, the employer would still have a right to consider antecedents of the candidate and could not be compelled to appoint such candidate.
15. In the present case, as on the date when the respondent had applied, a criminal case was pending against him.
Compromise was entered into only after an affidavit disclosing such pendency was filed. On the issue of compounding of offences and the effect of acquittal under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C., the law declared by this Court in Mehar Singh (supra), specially in paragraphs 34 and 35 completely concludes the issue. Even after the disclosure is made by a candidate, the employer would be well within his rights to consider the antecedents and the suitability of the candidate. While so considering, the employer can certainly take into account the job profile for which the selection is undertaken, the severity of the charges levelled against the candidate and whether the acquittal in question was an honourable acquittal or was merely on the ground of benefit of doubt or as a result of composition.
16. The reliance placed by Mr. Dave, learned Amicus Curiae on the decision of this Court in Mohammed Imran (supra) is not quite correct and said decision cannot be of any assistance to the respondent. In para 5 of said decision, this Court had found that the only allegation against the appellant therein was that he was travelling in an auto-rickshaw which was following the auto-rickshaw in which the prime accused, 6 who was charged under Section 376 IPC, was travelling with the prosecutrix in question and that all the accused were acquitted as the prosecutrix did not support the allegation. The decision in Mohammed Imran (supra) thus turned on individual facts and cannot in any way be said to have departed from the line of decisions rendered by this Court in Mehar Singh (supra), Parvez Khan (supra) and Pradeep Kumar (supra).
17. We must observe at this stage that there is nothing on record to suggest that the decision taken by the concerned authorities in rejecting the candidature of the respondent was in any way actuated by mala fides or suffered on any other count. The decision on the question of suitability of the respondent, in our considered view, was absolutely correct and did not call for any interference. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the decisions rendered by the Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench and dismiss Writ Petition No.9412 of 2013 preferred by the respondent. No costs.'' The Supreme Court in the case of Union of Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Ors. vs. Pradeep Kumar and Another, 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 v. Union of India and Others(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), (SCC p. 508) ''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."7
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 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.'' Thus, it is clear that mere acquittal of the candidate in a criminal case 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.
(10) In the present case, the petitioner had applied for the post of Constable (Driver) and apart from other criminal cases, the petitioner was also tried for an offence of rash and negligent driving, thereby killing one 8 cow. Now, the only question is that whether the acquittal of the petitioner because of the fact that witnesses had turned hostile can be said to be honourable acquittal or not ?
(11) The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh Pawar vs. State of M.P. reported in 2018 (2) MPJR 178 has held as under:-
" Decision of Criminal Court 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. Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.P.No.5887/2016 (Arvind Gurjar vs. State of M.P.) is overruled. Another Division Bench judgment in W.A. No.367/2015 (Sandeep Pandey vs. State of M.P. and others) is also overruled. Jurisdiction of the High Court in a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is to examine the decision- making process than to act as Court of appeal to substitute its own decision. In appropriate case, if the Court finds decision-making process is arbitrary or illegal, the Court will direct the Authority for reconsideration rather than to substitute the decision of the competent Authority with that of its own.
The expectations from a Judicial Officer are of much higher standard. There cannot be any compromise in respect of rectitude, honesty and integrity of a candidate who seeks appointment as Civil Judge. The personal conduct of a candidate to be appointed as Judicial Officer has to be free from any taint. The standard of conduct in the case of Judicial Officer is higher than that expected of an ordinary 9 citizen and also higher than that expected of a professional in law as well. The same must be in tune with the highest standard of propriety and probity."
Thus, it is clear that although the petitioner had disclosed about registration of the criminal cases as well as his acquittal in those criminal cases, but still since the Police Force is a disciplined force, therefore, the decision of the Criminal Court on the basis of compromise or an acquittal cannot be treated that the candidate possesses good character, which may make him eligible to the post of Constable (Driver) in Police Department. Mere acquittal in criminal cases on the ground of compromise cannot be said to be honourable acquittal and the authorities can very well consider the effect of registration of criminal cases. Therefore, the authorities were well within their rights to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Constable (Driver) in the light of registration of Criminal Case for rash and negligent driving.
(12) Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents did not commit any mistake in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner.
(13) Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. Ahluwalia) Judge MKB MAHENDR Digitally signed by MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH GWALIOR, ou=P.S., A KUMAR postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=f592da990684fe30f8e1e29a 4a1a9e3451ee450d883083a8e4cc802 BARIK 0eee6f7cb, cn=MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK Date: 2019.09.13 10:46:22 +05'30'