THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS (APPELLANTS) Vs. BHUPENDRA YADAV (RESPONDENT)

PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NO. 27301 OF 2018
(2JB, HIMA KOHLI and RAJESH BINDAL JJ., delivered by HIMA KOHLI, J.)

Facts: A challenge has been laid in the present appeal to the judgement dated 24^th January, 2018, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant – State Government against the order dated 17th November, 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition and relegating the matter back to the competent authority for passing a fresh order.

Issue: Whether the appellants have erred in rejecting the candidature of the Respondent to the post of Constable, despite the latter having truthfully disclosed in his affidavit the fact that he had faced trial in a criminal case which had resulted in his acquittal?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellants: Mr. Bharat Singh

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court has erred in interfering with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and overlooked the fact that a candidate who seeks recruitment in police service, must be of impeccable character, integrity and clean antecedents; that mere acquittal in the criminal case did not entitle the respondent for appointment in police service; that it is always open to an employer to consider the antecedents of a candidate and examine as to whether he would be suitable for appointment and such a discretion exercised by the Competent Authority ought not to be interfered with unless the decision is arbitrary or mala fide. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that even though a compromise was entered into between the respondent and the complainant in the criminal case and he was acquitted on being extended benefit of doubt, it still lies within the domain of the employer to decide as to whether the respondent would be a suitable candidate for appointment to the post, considering the fact that the offence for which he was charged involved moral turpitude. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel has cited Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another v. Mehar Singh, Avatar Singh v. Union of India and Others, Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Others v. Pradeep Kumar and Others and Pawan Kumar v. Union of India and Another.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent: Ms. Savitri Pandey

Learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has committed an error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondent in view of the fact that while filling up the verification form, he had furnished all the requisite information and duly disclosed the criminal case in which he was involved and its final outcome. Although, the respondent was acquitted ofall the charges levelled against him, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition which order was rightly overturned by the Division Bench of the High Court. Referring to the order dated 26th October, 2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, learned counsel for the respondent described it as a case of clean acquittal and argued that the appellant No. 3 ought not to have declared the respondent unfit for being recruited as a Constable.

Held: The court allowed the present appeal and held that, “mere acquittal of the respondent in the criminal case would not automatically entitle him to being declared fit for appointment to the subject post. The appellant–State Government has judiciously exercised its discretion after taking note of all the relevant factors relating to the antecedents of the respondent. In such a case, even one criminal case faced by the respondent in which he was ultimately acquitted, apparently on the basis of being extended benefit of doubt, can make him unsuitable for appointment to the post of a Constable. The said decision taken by the appellant–State Government is not tainted by any malafides or arbitrariness for the High Court to have interfered therewith. As a result, the judgement dated 17th November, 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge is upheld while quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment dated 24th January, 2018, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.”

The court observed that, “Even though the respondent had truthfully declared that he was involved in a criminal case which was decided by the trial Court vide judgement 26th October, 2015, on perusing the facts of the said case as noted hereinabove and the observations made in the judgement, quite clearly, this was not a case of clean acquittal. It is evident from the facts narrated that after the chargesheet was filed, the respondent had arrived at a compromise with the complainant and filed an application under Section 320 of the CrPC, based on which the offence under Section 341 IPC was compounded. As for the remaining offences for which the respondent was charged i.e. Section 354(D) of the IPC and Section 11 (D)/12 of the POCSO Act, they were non compoundable and therefore, the matter was taken to trial. The respondent was acquitted by the trial Court primarily on account of the fact that the complainant did not support the case set up by the prosecution and the other prosecution witnesses had turned hostile. In such circumstances, the respondent’s plea that he had been given a clean acquittal in the criminal case, is found to be devoid of merits.”