Pankaj Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 September, 2024

[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Pankaj Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 September, 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 27-07-2021 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.10791 of 2018 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 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 the unit of Superintendent, Rail, Bhopal. Thereafter, the process in relation to character verification took place and in that process it was found that the appellant suppressed the fact in relation to registration of FIR against him at crime No.148/2016 for offence under Sections 324, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC. Therefore, the candidature of petitioner to the post of Constable has been rejected by the respondents 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 appellant has given incomplete and misleading information in the character verification form as he did not mention the details of FIR registered against him on 25-10-2016. It is further held that 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 at the time of filling up of form of character verification on 14-02-2017, neither any charge-sheet was filed against the appellant nor any trial was pending consideration against him. Moreso, there was an enquiry report of DSP, Morena dated 22- 12-2016 in favour of appellant and only after filling up of form of character verification, trial Court took cognizance against the appellant and thereafter charge-sheet was filed in March, 2017. The 3 plea of alibi taken by the appellant was supported with the statements of witnesses where he was working at the time of occurrence of incident.

5. Appellant refers an affidavit dated 10-02-2017 which was filed with the application form in which he disclosed the facts clearly. Therefore, he never concealed any information. He disclosed the relevant facts.

6. It is further submitted that in trial also, appellant was acquitted from all the charges on the basis of evidence available on record and prosecution witnesses did not depose against the appellant, therefore on merits of the case, appellant was given clean acquittal. Merely registration of case does not prove guilt of the person in any of the offence particularly when the locality in which appellant resides i.e. Morena where false implication and over implication is always taken note of by the Courts.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the FIR in question, the allegation against the appellant was of causing lathi blow at the leg of one of the injured persons and except, this there was no other allegation against the appellant, therefore, according to prosecution itself, the case of appellant falls within Section 323 of IPC which does not come under the purview of moral turpitude. The Screening Committee wrongly concluded that according to Government guidelines No.F-17-74/2002/C-1 dated 5-06-2023, the offence under Section 326 of IPC comes under the purview of moral turpitude without duly vetting the evidence recorded before the trial Court and overlooked the fact that appellant was not the accused for offence under Section 326 of IPC.

8. It is further submitted that the Screening Committee did not 4 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.

9. 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 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.

10. 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.

11. Heard.

12. This is a case where the appellant who was duly selected for the post of Police Constable, has been denied the employment on the basis of alleged suppression of fact in relation to registration of case against him at crime No.148/2016 for offence under Sections 324, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC. Although perusal of evidence recorded in trial of the aforesaid case indicates that appellant is facing the allegation of causing lathi blow to one of the injured persons only and against him there was no allegation for offence under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC.

13. In the aforesaid case, parties first, compromised the matter for offence under Sections 294 and 506 of IPC and for rest of the offences under Sections 324/34 and 326/34 of IPC, trial was conducted and after conduct of trial, learned trial Court acquitted all the accused persons including the present appellant. According to the guidelines of Home Department, the offence under Section 326 of IPC falls under moral turpitude but if the evidence of the case in which appellant was tried as an accused is taken into consideration, then it would be clear that there was no allegation in relation to offence under Section 326 of IPC, it was the other accused persons against whom the allegation in relation to offence under Section 326 of IPC was levelled. In a criminal case, role of each accused is taken into consideration and from that perspective, appellant was only facing the allegation of Section 323 of IPC only.

14. Perusal of evidence available on record indicates that an FIR at crime No.148/2016 was registered against the appellant in which DSP, Morena conducted an enquiry under Section 36 of Cr.P.C. and concluded in favour of appellant. This gave an impression to the 6 appellant that he has been exonerated but the trial Court took cognizance in the matter and thereafter challan was filed in the matter on 05-03-2017 while the character verification form was filled by the appellant on 14-02-2017 prior to filing of challan in the matter.

15. Although, appellant was required to give each and every details of this case at the time of filling up the character verification form but the fact remains that registration of criminal case and examination/selection process for the post of the constable, both took place almost parallel and he has been exonerated by the DSP, Morena, therefore, appellant failed to understand the legal implications correctly. At the time when appellant was declared as a select candidate for the post of Constable, neither charge-sheet was filed nor trial Court took cognizance in the matter.

16. However, appellant immediately filed the affidavit, moment he came to know about his involvement in criminal case. This shows his bona fide.

17. 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. Here, in the present case, FIR itself indicates that appellant caused lathi blow at the leg of one of the complainant while that allegation too, could not be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, trial Court acquitted the appellant from all the charges.

18. In fact, Genesis of Crime is also to be seen while taking decision over fate of an employee. Here, genesis of crime (over water storage from tanker) does not indicate wicked mind and mens rea to commit 7 crime prima facie.

19. 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.

20. Application of any law is always meant for the prevailing time, social conditions and mores as well as surroundings in which it 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 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.

21. 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 8 hyper-technical view particularly when the offence as alleged against the appellant was not having the trappings of moral turpitude.

22. 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 circumstances of the case, petitioner deserves re-consideration by the concerned authority and therefore, petition deserves to be allowed.

23. Resultantly, impugned order dated 21-12-217 (Annexure P-1) passed by Superintendent, Rail, Bhopal as well as order dated 27- 07-2021 passed in Writ Petition No.10791/2018 by the learned Writ Court pale into oblivion. Accordingly set aside. Appeal stands allowed. The Superintendent, Rail, Bhopal is directed 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.

24. It is expected from the concerned authority that it shall take into consideration the dates and events in relation to selection process and registration of case and shall also go through the Genesis of Crime and the judgment of acquittal of the appellant passed by the 9 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.

25. Appeal stands allowed in above terms.

              (ANAND PATHAK)                              (HIRDESH)
Anil*             JUDGE                                     JUDGE



              ANIL KUMAR
              CHAURASIYA
              2024.09.20
              12:11:49
              +05'30'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court