Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kapil Namdev vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 January, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1037
1 WP-18962-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 20th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 18962 of 2023
KAPIL NAMDEV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dilip Awasthi - GA for respondent/State.
ORDER
With consent, heard finally.
The instant petition has been preferred by petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution seeking following reliefs:-
i- That, the order Annexure P/1 may kindly be quashed.
ii- That, respondent may kindly be directed to issue the
appointment order in favour of petitioner extending allconsequential benefit including seniority.
Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the
facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner appeared in the Police
Constable Recruitment Test,2020-21, wherein petitioner is declared
meritorious in both written and physical examination under Other BackwardSignature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 23-01-2025
05:54:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1037
2 WP-18962-2023
Category and he was allotted District Raisen. The petitioner submitted
character verification form, wherein it has been categorically mentioned that
FIR no. 546/2016 & 468/2018 under Sections 341, 294, 323, 506 & 34 of
IPC registered at Police Station Guna Kotwali & Guna Cant. (M.P.)
respectively. Respondent department without application of mind or going
the Clause 6 (II) Moral Turpitude Policy, 2018 has declared the petitioner as
unfit for service merely due to registration of aforesaid FIR on which offence
do not fall within the purview of moral turpitude and the said offences are
simple in nature. There was no concealment of facts on the part of petitioner.
Petitioner has been honorably acquitted by the competent court. The
impugned order, Annexure P/1 is arbitrary and also contrary to the law laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and
other, (2016) 8 SCC 471 . Therefore, petition deserves for the appointment as
per the Rules (Annexure P/5). Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has
filed this petition.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/State opposed the prayer
and prayed for its rejection by submitting in their return that case of the
petitioner was duly considered by the Screening Committee in its meeting
dated 17.05.2023. The offences levelled against the petitioner are serious in
nature and also falls within the purview of moral turpitude. Petitioner has not
disclosed the factum of compromise in column 12 of the Attestation Form,
which is a mandatory requirement for filling the form. Police force is a
disciplined force, therefore, a candidate wishing to join the police fore must
be a persons of utmost rectitude. The case of petitioner has been considered
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 23-01-2025
05:54:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1037
3 WP-18962-2023
in the light of the judgement passed by co-ordinate Benches of this Court in
case, Monu Singh Vs. State of M.P. (W.P. No.15490/2019) decided on
22.04.2022, and in the case of Anil Kumar Balmik Vs. State of M.P. and
others (W.P. No.23104/2019) decided on 02.09.2020. This subject matter has
also been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case W.A.
No.1070/202 decided on 19.09.2022. The impugned order has been rightly
passed on the basis of Circular Dated 17.05.2023 (Annexure R/1). Therefore,
the petition being misconceived and devoid of merits, deserves to be
dismissed.
Both the parties heard at length and perused the entire record with due
care.
It is a case where the petitioner, who is appointed on the post of Police
Constable, is duty bound to disclose the offence registered against him and
from perusal of the petition, it appears that the aforesaid two offence have
been registered against him.
The jurisdiction of the High Court in writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India is to examine the decision-making process rather
than to act as a Court of Appeal to substitute its own decision. In appropriate
cases, it the Court find that the decision-making process is arbitrary or
illegal, the Court will direct the authority for consideration rather than to
substitute the decision of the competent authority will that of its own.
In the case at hand, the allegations have been levelled against the
petitioner that he has concealed the material facts regarding his acquittal in
both the cases on the basis of compromise. But, from the perusal of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 23-01-2025
05:54:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1037
4 WP-18962-2023
verification form, it appears that the petitioner has categorically mentioned
the details of both the case and also annexed the copies of the judgement
passed by the concerned criminal courts. Therefore, it cannot be said the the
petitioner has concealed the aforesaid material facts.
In the instant petition, petitioner has preferred the copy of the
circular/policy dated 24.07.2018 (Annexure P/5). Respondents have also
preferred the notification dated 17.05.2023 (Annexure R/1). Both the
notifications are related to the procedure and rules regarding verification of
attestation forms submitted by the concerned candidates. Petitioner has
submitted the aforesaid attestation form on 25.11.2022, therefore, the
notification dated 24.07.2018 shall be applicable in the case of petitioner
regarding verification of the criminal antecedents. The notification dated
17.05.2023 ( Annexure R/1) has been issued after filling the attestation form
by the petitioner, therefore, the above subsequent circular will not be
applicable in the case of petitioner.
From perusal of the order sheet dated 16.01.2018(Annexure P/3), it
appears that petitioner has been acquitted for the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 294, 323,506, 34 of the IPC on the basis of compounding of
offences. Petitioner has preferred another copy of the order sheet dated
25.08.2022, in which petitioner has also been acquitted for the offences
punishable under Sections 294, 341, 323/34, 506-II of IPC on the basis of
compromise.
Although, the “Moral Turpitude” has not been defined in any statute or
service rules, but in the circular dated 24.07.2018 (Annexure P/5) issued by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 23-01-2025
05:54:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1037
5 WP-18962-2023
Home Department, Government of M.P., a list has been mentioned of the
offences which fall under the purview of the moral turpitude. As per
Schedule A of the circular dated 24.07.2018, the offences which are
punishable for the jail imprisonment of more than three years, comes in the
purview of the offences of moral turpitude. Offence under Section 506-II is
punishable for imprisonment of 7 years or fine or both, therefore, it is proved
that the offence registered against the petitioner comes under the purview of
the moral turpitude and admittedly the petitioner has been acquitted in both
the criminal cases on the basis of compromise.
The larger bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh Pawar Vs. High
Court of Madhya Pradesh and others [W.P.. No.5865/2016, decided on
12.01.2018] has held as under:-
“Decision of Criminal Court on the basis of compromise or
an acquittal cannot be treated that the candidate possesses good
character, which may make him eligible, as the criminal
proceedings are with the view to find culpability of commission of
offence whereas the appointment to the civil post is in view of his
suitability to the post. The test for each of them is based upon
different parameters and therefore, acquittal in a criminal case is
not a certificate of good conduct to a candidate. The competent
Authority has to take a decision in respect of the suitability of
candidate to discharge the functions of a civil post and that mere
acquittal in a criminal case would not be sufficient to infer that the
candidate possesses good character. Division Bench judgment ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 23-01-2025
05:54:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10376 WP-18962-2023
this Court in W.P.No.5887/2016 (Arvind Gurjar vs. State of M.P.)
is overruled. Another Division Bench judgment in W.A.
No.367/2015 (Sandeep Pandey vs. State of M.P. and others) is also
overruled.”
The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramvaran Singh
Gurjar vs. State of MP & Others, passed in Writ Appeal No.1257 of 2018 by
order dated 29/10/2018 has observed as under:-
”7.Once this Court holds that acquittal of
petitioner/appellant in regards offence punishable u/s. 3(1)(छ),
3(1)(ध) and 3(2) of the 1989 Act was honourable and not on
technical grounds, the question of element of moral turpitude
coming into play against petitioner does not arise.
7.1. Undoubtedly, the element of moral turpitude which is
inherent part of certain offences of serious nature including
offence punishable u/S. 3(1)(द), 3(1)(ध) and 3(2) of the 1989 Act
can very well be brought into play to the detriment of a candidate
in a selection provided there is some evidence worth it’s name
supporting the prosecution story creating a reasonable doubt as
regards complicity of the accused.
7.2. However, in the instant case, the prosecution failed to
produce even an iota of evidence to establish the foundational
ingredients of offences under the 1989 Act. Thus, no offences as
alleged could be established against the petitioner/appellant.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 23-01-2025
05:54:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1037
7 WP-18962-2023
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal and
Others Vs. SK.Nazrul Islam, (2011) 10 SCC 184, it has been held as under:
–
“We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we fail
to appreciate how when a criminal case under Sections 148, 323,
380, 448, 427, 506 of IPC, against the respondent, was pending in
the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia,
Howrah, any mandamus could have been issued by the High Court
to the authorities to appoint the respondent as a Constable. Surely,
the authorities entrusted with the responsibility of appointing
constables were under duty to verify the antecedents of a
candidate to find out whether he is suitable for the post of
constable and so long as the candidate has not been acquitted in
the criminal case of the charges under Sections 148, 323, 380, 448,
427, 506, IPC, he cannot possibly be held to be suitable for
appointment to the post of Constable”.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases
o f Avtar Singh (supra) and Parvez Khan (supra) , this Court is of the
considered opinion that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically
entitle the petitioner to appointment to the post. Still, it is open to the
employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether he is suitable for
appointment to the post. From the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Parvez Khan (supra) , it is clear that a candidate, to be recruited to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 23-01-2025
05:54:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1037
8 WP-18962-2023
the police service must have impeccable character and integrity. A person
with criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted
or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was hon’ble acquitted or
completely exonerated. The decision of the Screening Committee must be
taken as final unless it is shown to be malafide and the decision of the
Criminal Court on the basis of compromise cannot be treated that the
candidate possesses good character, which may make him eligible, as the
criminal proceedings are with the view to find culpability of commission of
offence, whereas the appointment to the civil post as in view of his
suitability to the post, whereas the appointment to the civil post is in view of
his suitability to the post. The test for each of them is based upon different
parameters, therefore, acquittal in a criminal case is not a certificate of good
character to a candidate. There is no allegation of malafide against the person
taking said decision nor the decision is shown to be perverse or irrational.
There is no material to show that the petitioner was falsely implicated.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Parvez Khan (supra) , it is also
held in Para 35 that:-
“35. The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the
great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order
in society. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must
be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the
police force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must have
impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal
antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted orSignature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 23-01-2025
05:54:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1037
9 WP-18962-2023
discharged in the criminal case, that acquittal or discharge
order will have to be examined to see whether he has been
completely exonerated in the case because even a possibility of his
taking the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the
police force.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that
petitioner has been acquitted in both the criminal cases on the basis of
compounding/compromise. But, the offence under Section 506-II of IPC is
an offence of moral turpitude as per the circular dated 24.07.2018 (Annexure
P/5) issued by the Home Department Home Department (C-Section), M. P.
Government, therefore, acquittal of petitioner cannot be treated as honorable
acquittal. The petitioner has filed his candidature for the post of Constable in
the Police Department which is a disciplined force, therefore, impugned
order Annexure P/1 passed by the respondent No.4, declaring petitioner unfit
for police force and rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for the
recruitment on the post of Constable in Police Department is just, proper and
in accordance with law. Therefore, no case is made out warranting
interference in the matter.
Hence, in after cumulative analysis, the instant petition stands
dismissed.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Vishal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 23-01-2025
05:54:10 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1037
10 WP-18962-2023
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VISHAL
UPADHYAY
Signing time: 23-01-2025
05:54:10 PM
[ad_1]
Source link