Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1
WP-5059-2017
(Ajay Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors)
Gwalior, 24.04.2018
Shri Alok Katare, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Government
Advocate for the respondents/State.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.
Petitioner having participated in the process of recruitment in the Police Recruitment Test, 2016 for the post of Constable (GD) cleared its all stages and finally was allotted the post of Constable(GD) with posting Unit as S.P. District Vidisha. The candidature of the petitioner was, however, cancelled at the stage of Character Verification on the finding by Screening Committee of having been prosecuted vide Crime No.155/06 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 34 of IPC and Crime No.61/15 for the offences punishable under Sections under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 324, 336, 506-B of IPC wherein the petitioner was acquitted on 05.07.2006 and 07.01.2017.
The Screening Committee which held its meeting on 16/05/2017 found the petitioner not eligible which was communicated to the Superintendent of Police, District Vidisha (M.P.) vide letter No. Øekad&fo'kk@21@Ogj@2016&17¼,Q&217@17½ THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 WP-5059-2017 (Ajay Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors) dated 01.06.2017 which is reproduced below:
fo'ks"k 'kk[kk] e/;izns'k] Hkksiky Øekad& fo'kk@21@Ogj@2016&17¼,Q&217@17½ fnukad 1&6&17 iqfyl v/kh{kd ftyk fofn'kk fo"k;%& pfj= lR;kiu vH;FkhZ vt; ;kno ds laca/k esaA vH;FkhZ vt; ;kno ds laca/k esa ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh Xokfy;j dk i= dzekad D;w@pfj= lR;kiu@jh&2@2017@3763@3@ fnukad 30-03-17 ,oa iqfyl v/kh{kd Xokfy;j dk i= dzekad iqv@Xok@ftfo'kk@p-l-@,e&486@17 fnukad 16-03-17 rFkk iqfyl v/kh{kd eqjSuk dk izfrosnu lfgr] vuqizek.ku QkeZ 'kiFk i=] U;k;ky; fu.kZ; dh izfr layXu izsf"kr gSA 2& vH;FkhZ vt; ;kno ds lR;kiu ds nkSjku buds fo:) Fkkuk Xokfy;j ftyk Xokfy;j e0iz0 fuEufyf[kr 02 vijk/k iathc) gksuk ik;k x;k gS%& ¼1½ Fkkuk iqjkuh Nkouh ftyk Xokfy;j esa vi-dz- 155@06 /kkjk 323] 324]504]34] Hkknfo dk izdj.k iathc) dj pkyku U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;k FkkA fd'kksj U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 05-07-06 dks nks"keqDr fd;k x;k gSA ¼2½ Fkkuk iqjkuh Nkouh ftyk Xokfy;j esa vi-dz- 61@15 /kkjk 147] 148] 149] 294] 323]324]336] 506&ch Hkknfo dk izdj.k iathc) dj pkyku U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;k FkkA U;k;ky; esa /kkjk 294] 506&Ckh dk fppkj.k ugh gqvk gSA U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 07-01-17 dks /kkjk 148] 323@149] 325@149] 294] 506&Ckh Hkknfo esa jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij ,oa 324@149] 336 Hkknfo esa vkjksi izekf.kr ugha ik;s tkus ij nks"keqDr fd;k x;k gSA 3& vH;FkhZ ij iathc) vijk/k dh /kkjk 325] 148] 149 Hkknfo uSfrd v/kksiru ds vUrxZr gSA vH;FkhZ }kjk vijk/k dks vuqizek.ku QkeZ esa ys[k fd;k x;k gSA 4& iqfyl foHkkx esa p;fur vH;fFkZ;ks ds pfj= lR;kiu izdj.k gsrq xfBr Nkuchu lfefr ¼SCREENING COMMITTEE½ dh cSBd fnuakd 19-06-17 dks iq0eq0 e0iz0 Hkksiky esa lEiUu gqbZ ftlesa vH;FkhZ viuk i{k j[kus gsrq Lo;a mifLFkr gq,A 5& Nkuchu lfefr }kjk] ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk esgj flag fo:) dfe'uj vkWQ iqfyl fnYyh ,oa vorkjflag fo:) Hkkjr la?k esa ikfjr fl)kUrksa ds vkyksd esa fnukad 16-05-17 dks vk;ksftr cSBd esa buds izdj.k dh leh{kk dh xbZA vorkjflag fo:) Hkkjr la?k ds fu.kZ; ds iSjk&30 esa fuEufyf[kr fcUnqq ekxZnf'kZr fl)kar ds :i esa fn;s x;s gS ftldh fLFkfr bl izdj.k esa fuEukuqlkj gS%& THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 WP-5059-2017 (Ajay Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors) la dza fu.kZ; dh dafMdk vH;FkhZ ds izdj.k dh fLFkfr 1 Information given to vH;FkhZ }kjk vuqizek.ku QkeZ esa the employer by a mlds fo:) iathc) vijk/k dk candidate as to ys[k fd;k gSA conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whethter before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.
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.
3 The employer shall vH;FkhZ ij iathc) vijk/k dh /kkjk
take into 148]149]325 Hkk-n-fo- 'kklu ds
consideration the funsZ'k dzekad
Government orders ,Q&17&74@2002@lh&1 fnukad 5
twu 2003 ds vuqlkj uSfrd
instructions/rules,
v/kksiru dh Js.kh esa gksdj xEHkhj applicable to the izd`fr dh gSA vH;FkhZ dh nks"keqfDr employee, at the Clean or Hournable Acquittal time of taking the dh Js.kh esa ugh vkrh gSA decision .
,& ;wfuQkeZ lsok@ukSdjh pkgus okys O;fDr dh lsok,as 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 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 WP-5059-2017 (Ajay Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors) mPp uSfrd vkpj.k gksuk o vijkf/kd xfrfof/k;ka u gksuk vko';d gS ch& 'kkldh; lsodks ds laca/k esa 'kklu ds mRre vkpj.k laca/kh fl)kUrksa ds vuqlkj 'kkldh; dehZ dks mRre Nfo okyk gksuk pkfg, pqafd iqfyl foHkkx ds vf/kdkfj;ksa ij vijkf/kd izo`fRr ds yksxksa ij vadq'k yxkus dh ftEesnkjh gksrh gSA vr% tufgr esa vijkf/kd fjdkMZ ds O;fDr dks iqfyl foHkkx esa fu;qDr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugh gS lh& 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 4 In case there is vH;FkhZ }kjk vijkf/kd tkudkjh suppression or false fNikbZ ugha xbZ gSA 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:-
(a) In 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 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 WP-5059-2017 (Ajay Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors) not have rendered and incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion. Ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.
(b) where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.
(c) If acquittal has 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 giving, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.
5 In a case where the vH;FkhZ }kjk vijk/k dk mYys[k employee has made vuqizek.ku QkeZ esa fd;k x;k gS] declaration truth ijUrq vH;FkhZ }kjk yxkrkj fd;s fully of a concluded x;s vijk/kksa esa ls ,d vijk/k esa uSfrd v/kksiru ds vk;ke 'kkfey criminal case, the gS ,oa yxkrkj fd;s x;s vijk/kksa ls employer still has vH;FkhZ dh vkijkf/kd izd`fr the right to consider n`f""Vxr gksdj] Hkfo"; esa iqu% antecedents. And vijk/k nksgjk;s tkus dh izcy cannot be compelled THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 6 WP-5059-2017 (Ajay Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors) to appoint the laHkkouk izrhr gksrh gSA ;?kfi candidate. vH;FkhZ dks U;k;k- }kjk vkjksi izekf.kr ugha ik;s tkus ij nksuks vijk/kksa ls nks"keqDr fd;k x;k gS fdUrq ,slh nks"keqfDr Clean or Honourable Acquittal dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrh gSA vr% vH;FkhZ dks 'kkldh; lsok ds v;ksX; ik;k x;k gSA 6 In case when fact mDr vijk/k lkekU; vijk/k dh has been truthfully Js.kh esa ugh vkrk gSA vr% mDr declared in character fcUnq bl izdj.k esa ykxw ugha gksrsA 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.
7 In case of deliberate vH;FkhZ ds fo:) izkIr suppression of fact tkudkjh ,oa nLrkost ksa ds vuq lkj with respect to uSf rd v/kksiru dk 01 vijk/k gksuk multiple pending ik;k x;k gSA 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 person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.
The decision taken by the committee was later on communicated to the petitioner vide THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 7 WP-5059-2017 (Ajay Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors) communication dated 19.06.2017 in the following terms:
dk;kZy; iqfyl v/kh{kd ftyk fofn'kk Øekad@iqv@fofn'kk@LFkkiuk@817&A @2017 fnukad 19-06-17 izfr] Jh vt; ;kno iq= Jh cnu flag ;kno fuoklh xzke xaxk ekyuiqj Fkkuk iqjkuh Nkouh] ftyk Xokfy;j] fo"k;& iqfyl eq[;ky; dh Nkuchu lfefr }kjk iqfyl foHkkx ds fy, v;ksX; ik;s tkus ckor~A lanHkZ& iqfyl eq[;ky; dk i= dzekad fo'kk@21@Ogj@2016&17 ¼,Q 2017@17½ fnukad 01- 06-17 mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd vkids }kjk fn;s x;s fuokl ds ftys ds iqfyl v/kh{kd ls pfj= lR;kiu djk;s tkus ij ftyk Xokfy;j esa fuEukuqlkj vijkf/kd fjdkMZ ik;k x;k gSA 1& vijk/k dzekad 155@06 /kkjk 323] 324] 504] 34 HkknfoA 2& vijk/k dzekad 61@15 /kkjk 147] 148] 149] 294] 323] 324] 336]506&ch Hkknfo mijksDrkuqlkj vkijkf/kd fjdkMZ ik;s tkus ls iqfyl eq[;ky; fo'ks"k 'kk[kk dh Nkuchu lfefr }kjk ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk esgj flag fo:) dfe'uj vkWQ iqfyl fnYyh ,oa vorkj flag fo:) Hkkjr la?k esa ikfjr fl)kUrksa ds vkyksd esa fnukad 16-05-17 dks vk;ksftr cSBd esa leh{kk dh xbZ ftlesa vkidks iqfyl lsok ds fy, v;ksX; ik;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gsA ¼/kesZUnz pkS/kjh½ iqfyl v/kh{kd fofn'kk THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 8 WP-5059-2017 (Ajay Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors) Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that having been exonerated of the charges levelled against the petitioner, there was no stigma against the petitioner as would have created any impediment in his appointment to the post of Constable(GD). It is urged that the Screening Committee grossly erred in arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner is not a fit person to be taken in the services of disciplined force. Reliance has been placed on the decisions in Gorelal Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors: W.P.No.6151/2013(s) decided on 19.08.2016 and in State of M.P. vs. Gore Lal Sharma: W.A. No.102/2017 decided on 13/04/2017, in Tahseeldar Singh Vs. State of M.P. W.P.No.7412/2014 decided on 14/12/2015, in Kailash Chandra Sirvi vs. Home Department & Ors:
W.P.No.2778/2015 decided on 24/08/2016, in Dinesh Singh Parihar Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.: W.P.No.896/2014 decided on 18/06/2014 and in Sandeep Pandey vs. State of M.P. and Ors.W.A. No.367/2015 decided on 17/12/2015. As regard to decision in Sandeep Pandey(supra), it is stated on behalf of the respondent that the operation of said order has been stayed by the Supreme Court on 07/11/2016 in Special Leave to Appeal (c) No.20522/2016.
The respondents, on their turn, have opposed THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 9 WP-5059-2017 (Ajay Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors) the relief sought. It is urged that it is the sole discretion of the employer to engage or not to engage for reasons that an incumbent will not be suitable for the service for which he is considered. It is contended that in the case at hand the Screening Committee after giving personal hearing to the petitioner and taking into consideration the charges levelled against him, gave the opinion that he will not be a suitable person for service in a disciplined force. It is urged that the discretion having been judiciously exercised after affording an opportunity of hearing, the same cannot be faulted with.
Considered the rival submissions. The issue as present one came up for consideration before Full Bench of our High Court in Ashutosh Pawar Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another (Writ Petition No.5865/2016 Order dated 12.01.2018), wherein following questions were dwelt upon:-
"1. Whether in all cases, where an FIR lodged against a person for minor offences has been quashed on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties or a person has been acquitted on account of a compromise between the parties, the character of the person applying for appointment thereafter, has to be treated as Good and such a person cannot be held ineligible for THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 10 WP-5059-2017 (Ajay Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors) appointment under the Rules of 1994 ?
2. Whether the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can step into the shoes of the Appointing Authority and determine as to whether the person concerned is fit for appointment or whether the High Court on finding that the Authority concerned has wrongly exercised its discretion in holding the candidate to be ineligible should, after quashing the order, remit the matter back to the authority concerned for reconsideration or for fresh consideration as to the eligibility of the person ?
3. Whether the High Court while allowing such a petition in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can issue a further direction to the authority to appoint the person concerned on the post from the date his batchmates were appointed and to grant him back dated seniority and all other benefits or whether the High Court should simply remit the matter back to the authority for taking a decision in this regard ?
4. Whether the high standards of adjudging the good character of a candidate for appointment as a Judicial Officer, which has been adopted and followed by the State under the Rules of 1994 till the decision in the case of Arvind Gurjar (supra) were and are right and proper or whether in view of the decision in THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 11 WP-5059-2017 (Ajay Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors) the case of Arvind Gurjar (supra), the same should be considered to be relaxed to the extent that in all cases the character of a person should be treated to be good where he has been acquitted for minor offences on the basis of a compromise?
5. Whether the decision in the case of Arvind Gurjar (supra) lays down the correct law ?
6. Any other question that may arise for adjudication or decision in the dispute involved in the present petition and which the Larger Bench thinks appropriate to decide ?"
Dwelling on Questions No.1, 4 and 5, it is held:
"32. Therefore, in respect of the Questions No.1, 4 and 5 we hold that 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 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 12 WP-5059-2017 (Ajay Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors) the candidate possesses good character. In this view of the matter, we find that the judgment in Arvind Gurjar's case (supra) holding that it cannot be held that candidate does not have a good character, is not the correct enunciation of law. Consequently, the judgment in Arvind Gurjar's case (supra) is overruled.
In regard to questions No.2 and 3, it is held:-
"40. In view of the law laid down in above said judgments, there is no doubt that in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court only examines the decision-making process and does not substitute itself as a Court of appeal over the reasons recorded by the State Government. We find that the decision of the State Government holding that the petitioner is not suitable, is just, fair and reasonable keeping in view the nature of the post and the duties to be discharged.
41. Even if the High Court finds that the decision of the State Government is suffering from some illegality, the jurisdiction of the High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to remit the matter to the Authority for reconsideration rather than to substitute the decision of the competent Authority with that of its own. The Supreme Court in a judgment reported as (1994) 4 SCC 448 (State of Haryana vs. Naresh THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 13 WP-5059-2017 (Ajay Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors) Kumar Bali) was examining a question: as to whether there could be a direction to appoint a candidate, who sought appointment on compassionate ground. The Supreme Court held as under:-
"16. With regard to appointment on compassionate ground we have set out the law in Life Insurance Corpn. of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (1994) 2 SCC 718. The same principle will clearly apply here. What the High Court failed to note is the post of an Inspector is a promotional post. The issuing a direction to appoint the respondent within three months when direct recruitment is not available, is unsupportable. The High Court could have merely directed consideration of the claim of the respondent in accordance with the rules. It cannot direct appointment. Such a direction does not fall within the scope of mandamus. Judicial review, it has been repeatedly emphasised, is directed against the decision- making process and not against the decision itself; and it is no part of the court's duty to exercise the power of the authorities itself. There is widespread misconception on the scope of interference in judicial review. The exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction constitutionally conferred on the Apex Court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution can be of no THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 14 WP-5059-2017 (Ajay Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors) guidance on the scope of Article
226."
The impugned order when is tested on the anvil of the law laid down by the Full Bench, no interference is warranted. Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(Sanjay Yadav) Judge pd Digitally signed by PAWAN DHARKAR Date: 2018.04.25 18:58:58 -07'00'