Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.39 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bunty on 14 March, 2019
In Bunty's case (4 supra) relied by the learned counsel for
the respondents, the petitioner therein was involved in a case of
17 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
WP No.44735 of 2017
moral turpitude for the commission of an offence under Sections
392 and 411 of IPC, which is grievous in nature. But in instant
case, the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section
160 of IPC, which is trivial in nature. Moreover the instant case is
not a case of moral turpitude. Hence the cited decision is not
applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State ... vs Mohd. Ismail And Anr. on 18 October, 1996
In Mohd. Ismail's case (5 supra), a Division
Bench of this Court has set aside the order of the erstwhile Andhra
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal allowing the O.A. in favour of the
incumbent therein on the ground that at the time of committing
offence, he was less than 18 years and on conviction, he was sent
to Borstal School, holding that since the Police Department is
highly disciplined force and paramount importance in the society, if
the persons like the incumbent therein are appointed, it may lead
to turbulent situation. But however, in the said decision, the
allegation against the incumbent is that he has not disclosed about
his conviction by the criminal Court in Sessions Case. Normally,
18 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
WP No.44735 of 2017
the gravity of the offence in the Sessions Cases would be serious
in nature, but in the instant case, since the offence for which the
petitioner was convicted is trivial in the nature, the said citation is
not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
Commr.Of Police And Ors vs Sandeep Kumar on 17 March, 2011
11. A similar question came up for consideration before the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Police vs. Sandeep
14 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
WP No.44735 of 2017
Kumar7 wherein, candidature of the applicant therein for the post
of Constable was cancelled on the ground that he had concealed
his involvement in the criminal case registered for the offence
under Section 325 r/w 34 of IPC when he was 20 years of age.
Avtar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 July, 2016
14. It is not in dispute that mere involvement in a criminal case
is a disqualification to compete for appointment to public posts. In
the instant case, the petitioner was convicted of the offence under
Section 160 of IPC, i.e., for committing affray, which is,
admittedly, trivial in nature. Moreover, he was sentenced to pay
fine of Rs.100/- upon pleading guilty voluntarily. Non-mentioning
of the same in the application form and in the attestation form
16 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
WP No.44735 of 2017
appears to be not deliberate. Further, the petitioner is a young
person in the age group of 21 years at the time of alleged crime. It
is not that all the persons involved in crimes at young age should
be extended concessions, but as observed in Avatar Singh's case
(1 supra), in young age people often commit indiscretions due to
lack of maturity. In the instant case, the petitioner is selected for
the post of Constable and he hails from a marginalized section of
the society. Sometimes, societal fascinations mislead and
manifest all young people. Having regard to the totality of the
circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the alleged
misconduct of the petitioner in relation to the criminal case would
not debar or disqualify him for the post of Constable for which he
was successfully selected by qualifying in the written examination
and the physical efficiency test. Further, there appears to be no
deliberate concealment of any relevant fact by the petitioner.
Thus, the respondents are not justified in denying the post of
Constable to the petitioner for which he was selected. The
conclusions arrived by the respondents in disqualifying the
petitioner for the post of Constable is not cogent and lacks proper
application of mind.