Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yogesh Bharti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 March, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1151 of 2020
YOGESH BHARTI
Vs.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCE:
Shri G.S. Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ankur Mody- Additional Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
{Delivered on 3rd the Day of March, 2025} Per: Justice Anand Pathak
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 07-11-2020 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.17147 of 2020 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to the as "the petitioner") has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that in pursuance to an advertisement issued by the respondents in the year 2013, petitioner applied for the post of Constable in the Police Department. He appeared in the written and physical examinations and declared as a select candidate. Thereafter, he was called for filling up the 2 character verification form in which he disclosed the case registered at crime No.440/2011 at Police Station Civil Lines, Morena for offence under Section 25 (2) of the Arms Act in which he has been acquitted. The appointment order has been issued and he has been posted in 29th Battalion, SAF, Datia. Thereafter, the process in relation to character verification took place and vide order dated 05- 12-2014 respondents informed the petitioner that in the light of the order of screening committee dated 19-11-2014, he is not found eligible for the post of constable in the police department.
3. Petitioner, challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No.8203/2015, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation by passing a speaking order. Thereafter, the representation filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the respondents vide order dated 12-01-2017. The said order was again challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2196/2017, which was allowed vide order dated 02-01-2019 and the respondents were directed to give appointment to the petitioner. Respondents/State challenged the said order vide Writ Appeal No.931/2020, which was allowed vide order dated 28-09-2020 and the directions given by learned Writ Court to give appointment to the petitioner was set aside while maintaining the remaining part of the order and respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for his recruitment. Thereafter, again the respondents vide impugned order dated 27-10-2020 have rejected the candidature of the petitioner to the post of Constable in the Police Department. Petitioner again challenged the said order before learned Writ Court which was dismissed therefore, petitioner is before this Court.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that this is 3 third visit of the petitioner. According to counsel for the petitioner, the Screening Committee did not consider the material aspect of the matter and rejected the character verification of the petitioner while the fact remains that in the case registered at crime No.440/2011, petitioner was given clean acquittal. None of the authority has considered the case of petitioner in correct perspective.
5. It is further submitted that the Screening Committee failed to consider the nature of offence and extent of involvement of petitioner into it. The respondents have also taken into consideration the case registered subsequently at crime No.198/2016 in which he was given clean/honourable acquittal by learned trial Court. In none of the cases, petitioner 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 petitioner unfit for the services of police department. The offences registered against the petitioner were treated to be of heinous in nature while the case registered against the petitioner was of simple nature and none of the witness supported the case of prosecution.
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 petitioner on the basis of registration of criminal cases. Earlier the directions issued by learned Writ Court in the petition preferred by the petitioner, have not been complied with by the respondents twice and in writ petition No.17147/2020, learned Single Judge also did not consider plight of the petitioner and material aspects of the matter and dismissed the writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers the judgment of the 4 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 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 petitioner 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 petitioner as it is the prerogative of the employer who would check the suitability of the candidate for the job. It is further submitted that Crime No.440/2011 registered against the petitioner was taken into consideration by the respondents at the time of character verification but thereafter also another case at crime No.198/2016 was registered against the petitioner, thus, petitioner is a habitual offender. He supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.
510. This is a case where the petitioner who was duly selected for the post of Constable in SAF, has been denied the employment on the basis of registration of two criminal cases (one pre appointment and another during litigation) against the petitioner. Although the petitioner was acquitted by the trial Court but the said acquittal was on the ground that prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution story while in medical report, the injured persons of the case, received injuries at their vital part of the body.
11. Here, in the present, it is to be noted that petitioner is facing registration of two criminal cases one before the advertisement for the post of constable and another during pendency of the litigation. At the time of filling up of character verification form by the petitioner, there was only one case registered against him for offence under Section 25(2) of the Arms Act due to which, he was disqualified from the services of constable in SAF department and thereafter during the pendency of litigation between the petitioner and respondents, another case was registered against him at crime No.198/2016 for offence under Sections 294, 336, 323, 323/34, 452, 147, 148, 149, 506-B at Police Station Civil Lines, Morena. In the said criminal case, petitioner was given acquittal on the ground that prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case while the fact remains that medical report was against the petitioner.
12. Mere levelling of allegation does not prove guilt of any of the accused person. For that, the allegations should be supported with evidence. Here, in the presence case, the offence registered against the petitioner are having the trappings of moral turpitude and the evidence of the said case speaks against the petitioner. Besides that, when the case of character verification of the petitioner was under 6
consideration, during that period also, petitioner committed another crime which shows his criminal mind set, therefore, he is not a suitable candidate for the services of police department which is a disciplined force.
13. The reliance which is placed by the petitioner over the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) is of no help as in the said case, the Apex Court clearly held that the employer should assess the employee's suitability for the post concerned. So far as other orders cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, they are of no help as they move in different factual realm.
14. In the conspectus of facts and circumstances of the case, rival submission and the discussion surfaced in the impugned order, it appears that no case for interference is made out. Writ Court discussed the issue in detail. Petitioner failed to establish his case for appointment to the post of constable. Accordingly, the order passed by learned Writ Court is hereby affirmed and the writ appeal preferred by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.
15. Appeal stands dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
Anil* JUDGE JUDGE
ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
2025.03.04
10:41:55
+05'30'