Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr vs Monu Raghuwanshi on 24 October, 2017
1 WA.168.2017
State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Monu Raghuwanshi
24.10.2017
Shri Harish Dixit, learned Government
Advocate, for the appellants/State.
Shri Alok Katare, learned counsel for the
respondent.
This appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is directed against the order dated 07/09/2016 passed in Writ Petition No.3910/2013.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.
Having participated in the process of recruitment of constable and being placed in the select list, the candidature of the respondent
-petitioner was cancelled on the finding, based on the disclosure in the verification form, as to the respondent being proceeded in a Criminal Case vide Crime No.24/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 294, 323, 506B of IPC. Though the said case resulted in acquittal on the basis of compromise by order dated 12.05.2010. The decision was communicated to the respondent on 15/07/2013 whereagainst he filed the Writ Petition 3910/2013(S) wherein learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 07.09.2016 had set aside the order and directed the respondents (present appellants) to issue necessary orders.
2 WA.168.2017 State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Monu Raghuwanshi Exception is taken to the verdict by the State and its functionaries on the anvil of the decision by the Supreme Court in "Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others [(2016) 8 SCC 471]".
It is urged that the respondent though acquitted of the charge under Sections 294 of IPC and Sections 323, 506B of IPC on the basis of compromise, it was still within the competence of the appointing authority to have taken into consideration the antecedents of the respondent and it was because of his involvement in the crime of obscene act for which he was charged under Section 294 IPC, the decision was taken to cancel the candidature. It is urged that learned Single Judge having glossed over these aspects erred in directing for appointment.
Contradicting the contention, it is urged on behalf of the respondent that with the acquittal of respondent, all the charges got washed of. It is urged that though the acquittal is on the basis of compromise, however, there is no iota of material on record to establish that the compromise was out of coercion. It is urged that being falsely implicated and the complainant having realized the same did not pursue the matter. It is urged that there is no previous history of respondent in any crime as would have led the employer draw a conclusive finding as to his antecedent being not germane to government job. It is urged that in 3 WA.168.2017 State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Monu Raghuwanshi this fact situation the Writ Court did not err in causing indulgence.
Considered the rival submissions In Avtar Singh (supra), it is held:
"38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus:
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 circumstances 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 recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted :
38.4.1 In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded,
4 WA.168.2017 State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Monu Raghuwanshi 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 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.
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 5 WA.168.2017 State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Monu Raghuwanshi cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a 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 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."
In the case at hand as evident the respondent fairly disclosed the fact about the criminal case wherein he was acquitted. This 6 WA.168.2017 State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Monu Raghuwanshi information apparently is the foundation for passing of the order dated 15.07.2013 which states:
xksiuh; fo'ks"k 'kk[kk] e/;izns'k] Hkksiky Øekad& fo'kk@21@Ogj@2013&17 ¼,Q&288@13½ fnukad 15&7&13 izfr] iqfyl v/kh{kd] eq[;ky;
ftyk bUnkSjA fo"k;%& pfj= lR;kiu Jh eksuw j?kqoa'kh ds laca/k esaA vH;FkhZ Jh eksuw j?kqoa'kh ds laca/k esa ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh xquk dk i= dzekad&,l MCY;w@15&1@1@40 fnukad 02-05-13 ,oa iqfyl v/kh{kd xquk dk i= dzekad iqv@xquk@ftfo'kk@p-l-@245&ch fna- 29-04-13 ds izfrosnu vuqizek.ku QkeZ] 'kiFk i= U;k;ky; fu.kZ; dh izfr layXu izsf"kr gSA 2& vH;FkhZ ds fo:) Fkkuk dsUV esa vi-dz- 24@10 /kkjk 294]323]451]34 Hkknfo dk izdj.k iathc) dj pkyku U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;k FkkA U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 24-01-13 dks jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij nks"keqDr fd;k x;k gSA iathc) vijk/k dh /kkjk 451 Hkknfo uSfrd v/kksiru ds vUrxZr gksrs gq, xaHkhj izd`fr dh gSA tks lk/kkj.k vijk/k dh Js.kh dk ugh gSA 3&,& bl laca/k esa ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd iqfyl deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok 'krsZ ,oa vkpj.k e/;izns'k iqfyl jSX;qys'ku ds vuqlkj fu/kkZfjr gS] ftlds iSjk dzekad 64 esa ;g vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd iqfyl dk vf/kdkjh vius futh thou esa 'kkafriw.kZ O;ogkj dk vkn'kZ izLrqr djsxk rFkk lHkh izdkj ds i{kikr ls nwj jgsxkA 3&ch& ;quhQkeZ lsok@ukSdjh pkgus okys O;fDr dh lsok,sa vU; lsok okys mEehnokj ls fHkUu Lrj dh Js.kh esa vkrh gS iqfyl foHkkx esa p;fur mEehnokj dk drZO; izns'k dh dkuwu O;oLFkk ,oa turk dh tku eky dh lqj{kk dk fuoZgu djuk gksrk gSA iqfyl dh lsok esa mPp uSfrd vkpj.k gksuk o vijkf/kd xfrfof/k;ka u gksuk vko';d gSA 3&lh& 'kkldh; lsodks ds laca/k eas 'kklu ds mRre vkpj.k laca/kh fl}kUrksa ds vuqlkj 'kkldh; dehZ dks mRre Nfo okyk gksuk pkfg,] pwafd iqfyl foHkkx ds vf/kdkfj;ksa ij vijkf/kd izo`fRr ds yksxksa ij vadq'k yxkus dh ftEesnkjh gksrh gSSA vr% tufgr esa vijkf/kd fjdkMZ ds O;fDr dks iqfyl foHkkx esa fu;qDr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSSA 4- bl laca/k esa eku- mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk flfoy vihy dzekad 4842@13 ¼,l-,y-ih- dzekad 38886@12½ }kjk dfe'uj vkQ fnYyh iqfyl fo:) esgj flag esa ikfjr fu.kZ; esa iqfyl foHkkx esa fu;qfDr gsrq
7 WA.168.2017 State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Monu Raghuwanshi mEehnokj dh U;k;ky; }kjk llEeku nks"keqfDr dks gh fu;qfDr ;ksX; ekuk gS] D;ksafd iqfyl foHkkx esa fu;qfDr gsrq mEehnokj ds mRre pfj=]lR;fu"Bk ,oa bZekunkjh dh vis{kk dh tkrh gSA ,slk meehnokj tks iwoZ ls vijkf/kd xfrfof/k;ksa esa lafyIr jgk gS] Hkfo"; esa Hkh bl izdkj dh xfrfof/k;ksa esa lafyIr gksus dh laHkkouk ls badkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA 5&,& mDr vijk/k esa mYysf[kr /kkjk 451 Hkknfo ¼?kj esa ?kql dj vijk/k djuk½ uSfrd v/kksiru ds vUrxZr gksrs gq, xEHkhj izd`fr dh gSA jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij izdj.k dk fujkdj.k U;k;ky; ls gqvk gS] ftls xq.knks"k ds vk/kkj ij nks"keqfDr dh ifjf/k esa lfEefyr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA 5&ch& vH;FkhZ ds bl d`R; ls mldh fgald izo`fRr rFkk ns'k ds dkuwu ds izfr vuknj dh Hkkouk mtkxj gksrh gS] tks iqfyl tSls laosnu'khy foHkkx ds fy, mi;qDr ugha gSA 6& mijksDr n`f"V ls vH;FkhZ Jh eksuw j?kqoa'kh iqfyl foHkkx dh lsok ds fy, v;ksX; ik;k tkrk gSA layXu%& mijksDrkuqlkjA gsrq&iqfyl egkfujh{kd dk-O;-@lqj{kk] e-iz- HkksikyA Evident it is from the order dated 15.07.2013 that except the antecedent forming subject matter of Crime No.24/2010, there is no other criminal case pending against the respondent nor it is shown that he is involved in other case.
"Antecedent" as per Chambers 21st Century Dictionary means "an event or circumstance which precedes another". As per Black's Law Dictionary, it is an adjective which means "Earlier; preexisting; previous and when a word depicted quality or fact of going before."
In view whereof, it was incumbent upon the competent authority to have examined the antecedent of the respondent not only in the 8 WA.168.2017 State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Monu Raghuwanshi context of the crime registered vide Crime No.24/2010 but also it was required to cause a deeper probe as to the past of the respondent, which as apparent from the order, has not been done. It is only on the basis of declaration given by the respondent in his verification form as regard to registration of an offence vide Crime No.24/2010 wherein he was acquitted on the basis of compromise, a conclusion is arrived at by the Authority concerned that the respondent's antecedent is not germane for he being appointed in the police force.
Such a conclusion without any foundation cannot be given the stamp of approval. Learned Single Judge was, thus, within his right in setting aside the order and directing for consequential benefit following the said quashment, as would warrant any interference. Consequently, present appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no costs.
(Sanjay Yadav) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
pd