Akendra Raghuwanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 November, 2024

[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Akendra Raghuwanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 November, 2024

1. The present appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred by the appellant/petitioner being crestfallen by the order dated 04-10-2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.18623 of 2017 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that in pursuance to an advertisement issued by the respondents in the year 2016, appellant applied for the post of Constable (Driver) in the Police Department. He appeared in the examinations and declared as a select candidate. The appointment order has been issued and he has been posted in 2 18th Battalion, SAF, Shivpuri. Thereafter, the process in relation to character verification took place in which appellant specifically mentioned that against him two cases were registered; (i) Crime No.360/2013 at Police Station Ishagarh District Ashoknagar for offence under Sections 147, 294, 323, 325, 341, 506-B of IPC and

(ii) Crime No.359/2015 at Police Station Mungaoli District Ashoknagar for offence under Sections 323, 341, 506(part-II) read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Screening Committee without considering the genesis of crime and role of the appellant in these cases, rejected the candidature of appellant and he has been declared unfit for the services of Police Department.

3. Aggrieved by the rejection of candidature, appellant has preferred writ petition which was dismissed by learned Single Judge holding that the acquittal of the appellant on the basis of compromise, cannot be presumed to be honourable acquittal and since Police Department is a disciplined uniform force; therefore, any person with dubious background may not be suitable in the Police Department as a Police Constable is required to involve in maintenance of law and order situation. Therefore, appellant is before this Court.

4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the Screening Committee did not consider the material aspect of the matter and rejected the character verification of the appellant while the fact remains that in the case registered at crime No.360/2013, appellant was not the main accused and in another case registered at crime No.359/2015, firstly the matter was settled between the 3 parties through compromise and thereafter for the offence of Special Act, trial conducted in which appellant was discharged under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. at the stage of framing of charge.

5. It is further submitted that the Screening Committee failed to consider the nature of offence and extent of involvement of appellant into it. In none of the cases, appellant was the main/prime accused and he was only auxiliary/co-accused. The genesis of crime was not seen by the respondents and in a very cursory manner declared the appellant unfit for the services of police department. The offences registered against the appellant were treated to be of moral turpitude by the respondents department while the offences registered against the appellant do not fall in the category of offences of moral turpitude, according to circular of State Government itself. Even offence under Section 325 of IPC is taken out of list of offences involving moral turpitude.

6. It is further submitted that the Screening Committee did not consider each and every aspects of the matter and the evidence come on record and committed grave error in rejecting the candidature of appellant on the basis of registration of criminal case. On preferring writ petition, learned Single Judge also did not consider plight of the appellant and material aspects of the matter and dismissed the writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant refers the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 and submits that the said judgment talks about the objective consideration and once no objective consideration is shown by the departmental authority then it is for the Constitutional Court to invoke its jurisdiction for judicial 4 review. He also relied upon the judgments of Division Bench passed in W.A.No.1954/2019 (Devendra Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and Others) dated 01-05-2020 as well as in W.A.No.55/2023 (Monu Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) dated 24-07-2024 wherein the issue in relation to failure of character verification has been dealt with and the Court directed the respondents to consider the case of appellant.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents/ State opposed the prayer and submits that the case registered against the appellant involves element of Moral Turpitude and his entitlement or dis-entitlement for induction in the government service, will be subject to the nature of offence of the case. It is further contended that mere acquittal from serious charges would not confer any right to the appellant as it is the prerogative of the employer who would check the suitability of the candidate for the job. He supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

9. Heard.

10. This is a case where the appellant who was duly selected for the post of Police Constable (Driver), has been denied the employment on the basis of registration of two criminal cases against the appellant. Although the judgment of acquittal recorded in favour of appellant indicates that appellant was never the main accused and he was implicated only on the basis of alleged petty role of the appellant.

11. In the case registered at crime No. 359/2015, firstly the parties compromised the matter for offence under Sections 323 and 325 of IPC and the case proceeded for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act in which appellant was discharged under Section 232 of 5 Cr.P.C. which is evidence basically higher than the quashing of charges as the trial Court did not found any material on the basis of which, trial can be proceeded against the appellant. So far as another case registered at Crime No.360/2013 is concerned, in that case appellant was allegedly saddled with the allegation of abusing the complainant and nothing more than that. The offences registered against the appellant do not fall prima facie within the category of moral turpitude.

12. Mere levelling of allegation does not prove guilt of any of the accused person. For that, the allegations should be supported with evidence. Prosecution witnesses did not support the case of prosecution and declared hostile. Since appellant was wrongly implicated by the complainant, therefore, they entered into compromise and the trial which proceeded against the appellant, in that trial, the trial Court does not found any material to proceed against the appellant.

13. In fact, Genesis of Crime is also to be seen while taking decision over fate of an employee. Here, genesis of crime does not indicate wicked mind and mens rea to commit crime prima facie.

14. So far as the contention of respondents/State in relation to clean acquittal is concerned, there is no concept of clean acquittal in Cr.P.C. According to Cr.P.C. acquittal is acquittal. In other words, where there is no element of doubt in the mind of trial Judge, the acquittal is recorded in favour of accused person. Respondents cannot deny the employment to the appellant merely on the ground that he was tried for some offences.

15. Application of any law is always meant for the prevailing time, social conditions and mores as well as surroundings in which it 6 operates. In the jurisdiction of this Court, many cases are registered at the instance of complainant with overtone of false implication or over implication. Many a times, a person who is serving in a government job is implicated as an accused and in many cases, a candidate preparing for government job or an aspirant, is also roped in as an accused so as to frustrate his future prospects. The Police Authorities which operate at ground level, are well versed with the ground reality and decipher each and every case with precaution and care because future prospects of a candidate to enter into government job ought not lie at the mercy of the complainant who may lodge false complaint at any time against any person.

16. If the authorities are swayed by the thought of mere registration of offence or mere conduct of the trial or acquittal or clean acquittal or otherwise, then they may be ignoring the 'LIFE' into that 'FILE because each 'FILE' has its own 'LIFE'. Here in the present case, appellant faced trial in one case in which he was acquitted by the trial Court. When appellant came out acquitted and his innocence stood vindicated then department should not take such pedantic and hyper-technical view particularly when the offence as alleged against the appellant was not having the trappings of moral turpitude.

17. This Court in W.A. No.1954/2019 (Devendra Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and Others) decided on 01-05-2020 as well as in W.A.No.55/2023 (Monu Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) dated 24-07-2024 discussed this aspect in detail and has considered impact of acquittal under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. In paragraphs 6 to 11 of the said order, detail discussion was made about various contours of the subject matter. In the conspectus of facts and 7 circumstances of the case, petitioner deserves re-consideration by the concerned authority and therefore, petition deserves to be allowed.

18. Resultantly, impugned orders dated 04-09-2017 and 25-09-2017 (Annexure P/1 & P/2) passed by respondents as well as order dated 04-10-2024 passed in Writ Petition No.18623/2017 by the learned Writ Court pale into oblivion. Accordingly set aside. Appeal stands allowed. Matter is remanded back to the respondents to reconsider the case of appellant afresh in the light of the judgments of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India (supra) and this Court in W.A. No.1954/2019 (Devendra Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and Others), W.A.No.55/2023 (Monu Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) as well as directions issued by this Court today so that objective consideration can be made while deciding the case of the appellant.

19. It is expected from the concerned authority that it shall take into consideration the Genesis of Crime and the judgment of acquittal of the appellant passed by the trial Court and then apply the allegations in peculiar social conditions of the area as well as facts and circumstances of the case holistically. Thereafter reasoned order be passed with objectivity. Needful be done within two months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.

20. Appeal stands allowed in above terms.

              (ANAND PATHAK)                               (HIRDESH)
Anil*             JUDGE                                      JUDGE
               ANIL KUMAR
               CHAURASIYA
               2024.12.04
               11:32:22
               +05'30'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court