Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Kumar Balmik vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 May, 2018
Bench: J.K.Maheshwari, Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
DIVISION BENCH BEFORE JUSTICE J.K.MAHESHWARI
&
JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
Writ Appeal No.587/2018
Anil Kumar Balmik
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
***********
Shri Arvind Dudawat, Advocate for appellant.
Shri Raghvendra Dixit, Government Advocate for State.
**********
JUDGMENT
04.05.2018 This appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyaylaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 25.4.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.6044/2017 (Anil Kumar Balmik Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Others) .
2. The appellant filed WP No. 6044/2017 challenging the report of the Screening Committee, held its meeting on 25.04.2017 and the communication dated 24.6.2017 by which the petitioner was declared unfit for appointment in character verification. Learned Single Judge relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Ashutosh Pawar Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another (Writ Petition No. 5865/2016) decided on 12.1.2018 and in the light of the said judgment, dismissed the writ petition.
23. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance to the order passed in WA No. 46/2018-Bhupendra Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 24.1.2018 to contend that in the said case also the judgment of Ashutosh Pawar (supra) has been taken into consideration and the Writ Appellate Court observed that not only the criminal case registered in which the acquittal is directed requires consideration, but it was incumbent upon the competent authority to examine the antecedent of the petitioner and to cause the deeper probe to form an opinion by the authority that the petitioner's antecedent is not germane for appointment in the police force. It is further contended that in the present case, the offence registered against the appellant (writ petitioner) was under Sections 457, 336, 294, 506-B and Section 34 of IPC while in Writ Appeal No. 46/2018 Bhupendra Yadav (Supra) the offences were registered under Section 341, 354(Gha), 323, 34 of IPC and under Sections 7/8 & 11(d)/12 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act involving moral turpitude. The Division Bench in the said case set aside the order of learned Single Bench, therefore, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge may be set aside and appropriate directions may be issued in the light of the judgment in the case of Bhupendra Yadav (supra).
4. On the other hand, Shri Raghvendra Dixit, learned Government Advocate, submits that the learned Single Judge has duly considered the judgment of Full Bench and also considered the report of the Screening Committee, and the order impugned has rightly been passed, therefore, interference in this appeal is not warranted.
5. After having heard learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record it is to be noted here that the Division Bench in the case of Bhupendra Yadav (supra) vide order dated 24.1.2018 has 3 considered the judgment of Ashutosh Pawar (supra) and after considering the said judgment observed as under:-
"Evident it is from the order dated 24.08.2017 that except the antecedent forming subject matter of Crime No.64/2015, there is no other criminal case pending against the petitioner nor is it 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, as held by the Full Bench of our High Court in Ashutosh Pawar (supra), it was incumbent upon the competent authority to have examined the antecedents of the petitioner not only in the context of the crime registered vide Crime No.64/2015 but also it was required to cause a deeper probe as to the past of the petitioner, which as apparent from the order, has not been done. It is only on the basis of declaration given by the petitioner in his verification form as regard to registration of an offence vide Crime No.64/2015 wherein he was acquitted, a conclusion is arrived at by the Authority concerned that the petitioner's antecedent is not germane for he being appointed in the police force. Learned Single Judge has, thus, erred in dismissing the petition while affirming the findings of the competent authority.
Consequently, order dated 17.11.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.19621/2017 is set aside. The order dated 24.08.2017 is also set aside. The matter is relegated to the competent authority to pass fresh order after considering the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made hereinabove. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
Writ Appeal stands disposed of finally in above terms."
6. In the present case, looking to the communication as referred in the order, it reveals an offence was registered against the appellant (writ petitioner) at Crime No. 150/2012 under Sections 457, 336, 294, 506-B and Section 34 of IPC. In the report in Column No.5 it was observed that the appellant is acquitted but it would not come 4 within the purview of 'honourable acquittal' and in Column No.6 it is observed that the said offence would not come in the offences of general category, therefore, he was not found fit in character verification for appointment in the police force. In the context of the decision in the case of Bhupendra Yadav (supra) wherein the judgment of Full Bench in the case of Ashutosh Pawar (supra) was also considered, this Court has observed the duty of the Screening Committee and competent authority to examine the antecedent of the petitioner not only in the context of the crime registered wherein he has been acquitted, but a conclusion is required to be arrived by the authority that why the antecedent of the petitioner debars him for being appointed in the police force. Learned Single Judge has referred the judgment of Ashutosh Kumar (supra), but the judgment of Division Bench in the case of Bhupendra Yadav (supra) has not been taken note of, though the judgment of Division Bench is also relying upon the same Full Bench and on sound reasoning, therefore, setting aside the order dated 25.4.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 6044/2017 the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be disposed of with a direction that the committee or the authority competent shall reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made in the case of Bhupendra Yadav (supra) and to take final decision regarding character verification and eligibility for appointment of the petitioner looking to the post on which the appointment is to be made within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.
7. With the aforesaid observation, this appeal stands disposed of.
(J.K.Maheshwari) (Anand Pathak)
Judge Judge
rs shukla
Digitally signed by
RAGHVENDRA SHARAN
SHUKLA
Date: 2018.05.07 15:56:28
+05'30'