Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivam Singh Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 March, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
W.P. No.24874/2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 29th OF MARCH, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 24874 of 2018
Between:-
SHIVAM SINGH THAKUR S/O SHRI BRIJENDRA SINGH THAKUR ,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT VILLAGE SASA
TEHSIL PATHARIA, DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI AJAY SHANKAR RAIZADA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY HOME (POLICE) DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS
JAHAGIRABAD BHOPAL, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
(SELECTION/RECRUITMENT) POLICE HEADQUARTERS
JAHAGIRABAD BHOPAL, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI DHEERAJ TIWARI, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENTS/STATE )
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
Heard finally with the consent of both the parties. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner inter alia praying for the following relief:
7.1 To quash the order 24/09/2018 W.P. No.24874/2018 2 7.2 To direct respondent to consider the petitioners case in view of Annexure P-8 7.3 To pass any other order or orders and direction or directions which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7.4 To award cost of this petition.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner had applied for post of Driver (Constable) in the recruitment process of the Police Department. The petitioner qualified the written examination and also passed the driving test but at the time of document verification, the petitioner has been held ineligible for being appointed on the post of Driver (Constable) for the reasons that some criminal cases were registered against him in which the petitioner has been acquitted but on the basis of criminal antecedents and also the fact that there is no Honourable acquittal, the candidature of the petitioner has been found not suitable for being appointed in police services. Being aggrieved the present petition has been filed.
3. During character verification it was found that the petitioner was tried in Crime No.122/16 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 294, 323, 324 of IPC. So far as the offence under Sections 147, 294, 323/149 of IPC are concerned, the petitioner was acquitted in the aforesaid case on the basis of compromise, whereas W.P. No.24874/2018 3 for the offence under Section 324/149 of IPC, the petitioner has been acquitted. Similarly, in Crime No.8/15 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 327, 338 of IPC, the petitioner has also been acquitted vide judgment dt.19.07.2016 on the ground of compromise.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having been acquitted of the criminal charges, is entitled to be issued appointment letter for the post of Driver (Constable). The respondents have adopted different yardsticks while considering the case of similarly situated candidates. Such attitude of the respondents results in lowering down the moral of youth of the country. In such circumstances, the deeper probe is required to be done before rejecting the claim of the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of this High Court at Gwalior Bench in W.A. No.1173/2018 (The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Raghuveer Gurjar) and in W.P. No.2688/2019 (Arvind Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors). He further placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.(s) 10571/2018 (Mohammad Imran Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) and in the case of Qamarali Wahid Ali Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh as reported in AIR 1959 MP 46 to contend that the departmental authorities had no right to sit in W.P. No.24874/2018 4 judgment over the decision of the criminal Court, and, therefore, the order of dismissal was wholly without jurisdiction. He further submitted that this Court relied upon the aforesaid cases, had relegated back the matter to the authority to reconsider the same and pass a reasoned and speaking order.
6. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner was acquitted on the ground of compromise and as per circular dt.24th July 2018, the offence under Section 149 of IPC amounts to moral turpitude, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for recruited in police department. The petitioner has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. The respondents have already taken into consideration the fact of his acquittal. Regulation 64 of M.P. Police Regulation deals with general condition of services. Sub Rule 11 of Regulation 64 of the M.P. Police Regulation stipulates that "In private life, he shall set an example of peaceful behaviour and shall avoid all partisanship". Offence registered against the petitioner involved moral turpitude, therefore, his case has rightly been rejected.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Parvez Khan as reported in (2015) 2 SCC 591, in which it is held that candidate to be recruited to police service must be worthy of W.P. No.24874/2018 5 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 to enter police force. On facts held, in absence of any allegations of mala fides against the SP who was the appointing authority, or any perversity or irrationality in his decision finding respondent ineligible for compassionate appointment because of his implication in two criminal cases impugned judgment directing reconsideration of respondent's case unsustainable. Refusal by competent authority to recruit respondent on grounds of his criminal antecedents call for no interference.
8. He further relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Police Vs. Mehar Singh as reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685, in which it is held as under:
The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the society. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is W.P. No.24874/2018 6 acquitted or discharged in the criminal case, that acquittal or discharge order will have to be examined to see whether he has been completely exonerated in the case because even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In recent times, the image of the police force is tarnished. Instances of police personnel behaving in a wayward manner by misusing power are in public domain and are a matter of concern. The reputation of the police force has taken a beating. In such a situation, we would not like to dilute the importance and efficacy of a mechanism like the Screening Committee created by the Delhi Police to ensure that persons who are likely to erode its credibility do not enter the police force. At the same time, the Screening Committee must be alive to the importance of trust reposed in it and must treat all candidates with even hand.
9. Learned counsel further placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India as reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471, wherein it has been held as under:W.P. No.24874/2018 7
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.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. On perusal of the impugned order dt.24.09.2018 (Annexure P/7), it is seen that the respondents have taken into consideration each and every aspect of the matter and has already passed a reasoned and speaking order following the directions contained in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) and given detailed reason for not appointing the petitioner as such this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents did not commit any mistake in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, therefore, this Court is W.P. No.24874/2018 8 not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE Shanu Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2022.03.30 18:54:35 +05'30'