Anil Kumar Balmik vs State Of Madhya pradesh & Ors

1,"Information given to

the employer by a

candidate as to

conviction, acquittal or

arrest, or pendency of

a criminal case,

whethter before or

after entering into

service must be true

and there should be no

suppression or false

mention of

required information.","vH;FkhZ }kjk vuqizek.ku QkeZ

esa mlds fo:) iathc) vijk/k dk ys[k

fd;k gSA

2,"while passing order of

termination of services

or cancellation of

candidature for giving

false information, the

employer may take

notice of special

circumstances of the

case, if any, while

giving such

information.",

3,"The employer shall

take into consideration

the Government orders

instructions/rules,

applicable to the

employee, at the time

of taking the decision .","'kklu ds funsZ'k dzekad

,Q&17&74@2002@lh&1

fnukad 5 twu 2003 ds vuqlkj 457

Hkknfo dk vijk/k uSfrd v/kksiru dh

Js.kh esa gksdj xEHkhj izd`fr dk

gSA vH;FkhZ dh nks""keqfDr

Clean or

Honourable Acquittal dh

Js.kh esa ugh vkrh gSA

,,"3&,& bl laca/k esa ;g Hkh

mYys[kuh; gS fd iqfyl deZpkfj;ksa

dh lsok 'krsZ ,oa vkpj.k e-iz- iqfyl

jsxqus'ku ds vuqlkj fu/kkZfjr gS

ftlds iSjk Øa- 64 esa ;g vis{kk dh

tkrh gS fd iqfyl dk vf/kdkjh vius

futh thou esa 'kkafriw.kZ O;ogkj

dk vkn'kZ izLrqr djsxk rFkk lHkh

izdkj ds i{kikr ls nwj jgsxkA

3&ch& ;wfuQkeZ lsok@ukSdjh

pkgus okys O;fDr dh lsok,a vU;

lsok okys mEehnokj ls fHkUu Lrj

dh Js.kh es vkrh gS iqfyl foHkkx

es p;fur mEehnokj dk drZO; izns'k

dh dkuwu O;oLFkk ,oa turk dh tku

eky dh lqj{kk dk fuoZgu djuk

gksrk gSA iqfyl dh lsok es mPPk

uSfrd vkpj.k gksuk o vijkf/kd

xfrfof/k;ka u gksuk vko';d gSA

3&lh& 'kkldh; lsodks ds laca/k

esa 'kklu ds mRre vkpj.k laca/kh

fl)kUrksa ds vuqlkj 'kkldh; dehZ

dks mRre Nfo okyk gksuk pkfg,

pqafd iqfyl foHkkx ds vf/kdkfj;ksa

ij vijkf/kd izo`fRr ds yksxksa ij

vadq'k yxkus dh ftEesnkjh gksrh

gSA vr% tufgr esa vijkf/kd

fjdkMZ ds O;fDr dks iqfyl foHkkx

esa fu;qDr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugh

gSA

4,"In case there is

suppression or false

information of

involvement in a

criminal case where","vH;FkhZ }kjk vijkf/kd tkudkjh

fNikbZ ugha xbZ gSA

,"conviction or acquittal

had already been

recorded before filling

of the

application/ verification

form and such fact

later comes to

knowledge of

employer, any of the

following recourse

appropriate to the case

may be

adopted:-

(e) In case trivial in

nature in which

conviction had been

recorded, such as

shouting slogans at

young age or for a

petty offence which if

disclosed would not

have rendered and

incumbent unfit for

post in question, the

employer may, in its

discretion. Ignore such

suppression of fact or

false information by

condoning the lapse.

(b) where

convictionhas been

recorded in case which

is not trivial in nature,

employer may cancel

candidature or

terminate services of

the employee.

(c) If acquittal

hasalready been

recorded in a case

involving moral

turpitude or offence of

heinous/serious nature,

on technical ground

and it is not a",

,"case of clean acquittal,

or benefit of

reasonable doubt has

been giving, the

employer may consider

all relevant facts

available as to

antecedents, and may

take appropriate

decision as to the

continuance of the

employee.",

5,"In a case where the

employee has made

declaration truth fully

of a concluded criminal

case, the employer still

has the right to

consider antecedents.

And cannot be

compelled to appoint

the candidate.","vH;FkhZ }kjk vijk/k dk mYys[k

vuqizek.ku QkeZ esa fd;k x;k gS]

;|fi vH;FkhZ dks U;k;k- } kjk Â

vkjksi izekf.kr ugha ik;s tkus ij ,d

vijk/k ls nks""keqDr fd;k x;k gS

fdUrq ,slh nks""keqfDr Clean or

Honourable Acquittal

dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrh gSA vr%

vH;FkhZ dks 'kkldh; lsok ds

v;ksX; ik;k x;k gSA

6,"In case when fact has

been truthfully declared

in character

verification form

regarding pendency of

a criminal case of

trivial nature, employer,

in facts and

circumstances of the

case, in its discretion

may appoint the

candidate subject to

decision of such case.","mDr vijk/k lkekU; vijk/k dh Js.kh

esa ugh vkrk gSA vr% mDr

fcUnq bl izdj.k esa ykxw

ugha gksrsA

7,"In case of deliberate

suppression of fact

with respect to multiple

pending cases such

false information by

itself will assume","vH;FkhZ ds fo:) izkIr tkudkjh ,oa

nLrkostksa ds vuqlkj uSfrd

v/kksiru dk 01 vijk/k gksuk ik;k x;k

gSA

,"significance and an

employer may pass

appropriate order

cancelling

candidature or

terminating services as

appointment of a

person against whom

multiple criminal cases

were pending may not

be proper.",

8,"If criminal case was

pending but not known

to the candidate at the

time of filling the form,

still it may have

adverse impact and the

appointing authority

would take decision

after considering the

seriousness of the

crime.","mDr izdj.k esa vH;FkhZ dks vijk/k

ds rF;ksa dh tkudkjh vuqizek.ku

QkeZ Hkjrs le; FkhA ftldk

mYys[k QkeZ es fd;k x;k gSA

9,"In case the employee is

confirmed in service,

holding Departmental

enquiry would be

necessary before

passing order of

termination/removal or

dismissal on the ground

of suppression or

submitting false

information in

verification form.","vH;FkhZ dks 'kkldh; lsok es dHkh

'kkfey ugh fd;k gSA vr%

;g fcUnq ykxw ugh gksrk gSA

10,"For determining

suppression or false

information attestation/

Verification form has

to be specific, not

vague. Only such

information which was

requied to be","vH;FkhZ dks vuqizek.ku QkeZ es

vijk/k ds laca/k es mYys[k djus dh

vis{kk dh xbZ Fkh tks mldsÂ

}kjk dh xbZ FkhA

,"specific, not vague.

Only such information

which was required to

be specifically

mentioned has to be

disclosed. If

information not asked

for but is relevant

comes to knowledge of

the employer the same

can be considered in an

objective manner while

addressing the question

of fitness. However, in

such cases action

cannot be taken on

basis of suppression or

submitting false

information as to a fact

which was not even

asked for.",

11,"Before a person in held

guilty of suppression

very or suggestion falsi,

knowledge of the fact

must be attributable to

him.","vH;FkhZ dks vuqizek.ku QkeZ

Hkjrs le; vijk/k dk Kku Fkk ftldk

mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA

lanHkZ& fo'ks""k 'kk[kk iqfyl eq[;ky; Hkksiky e0iz0 dk i= dz0& fo'kk@21@Ogj@2016&17 ¼,Q&146@17½ fnukad 24-06-17",,

mijksDr fo""k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd vkj{kd HkrhZ izfdz;k 2016 ds vUrxZr vkidk p;u vkj0 VsªM ¼Lohij½ ds in ij bl bdkbZ esa gqvk FkkA fu;qfDr",,

iwoZ vkidk pfj= lR;kiu iqfyl v/kh{kd ftyk eqjSuk e0iz0 ls djk;k x;kA iqfyl v/kh{kd eqjSuk dh fjiksVZ esa vkids fo:) ekuuh; U;k;ky; eqjSuk esa vkijkf/kd,,

izdj.k dza0 150@12 /kkjk 457]336]294]506&ch 34 Hkknfo dk mYys[k gksus ds dkj.k izdj.k dh leh{kk gsrq iqfyl eq[;ky; Hkksiky esa ,d Nkuchu desVh",,

dk xBu fd;k x;kA mDr Nkuchu desVh dh vksj ls izdj.k dh leh{kk mijkUr lanfHkZr i= ds ek/;e ls fjiksVZ bl dk;kZy; esa izkIr gqbZ gS ftlesa vkidks,,

iqfyl lsok ds v;ksX; ik;k x;k gSA vr% mDr laca/k esa vkidks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkidks,,

pfj= lR;kiu esa v;ksX; ik;s tkus ds dkj.k bl dk;kZy; }kjk fu;qfDr ugha nh tk ldrh gSA,,

         lsukuh,,

  13oha okfguh folcy Xokfy;j,,

Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that having been exonerated of the charges levelled against the petitioner, there was no stigma against the",,

petitioner as would have created any impediment in his appointment to the post of Constable(Sweeper). It is urged that the Screening Committee,,

grossly erred in arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner is not a fit person to be taken in the services of disciplined force. Reliance has been placed,,

on the decisions in Gorelal Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors: W.P.No.6151/2013(s) decided on 19.08.2016 and in State of M.P. vs. Gore,,

Lal Sharma: W.A. No.102/2017 decided on 13/04/2017, in Tahseeldar Singh Vs. State of M.P. W.P.No.7412/2014 decided on 14/12/2015, in Kailash",,

Chandra Sirvi vs. Home Department & Ors: W.P.No.2778/2015 decided on 24/08/2016, in Dinesh Singh Parihar Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.:",,

W.P.No.896/2014 decided on 18/06/2014 and in Sandeep Pandey vs. State of M.P. and Ors.W.A. No.367/2015 decided on 17/12/2015. As regard to,,

decision in Sandeep Pandey(supra), it is stated on behalf of the respondent that the operation of said order has been stayed by the Supreme Court on",,

07/11/2016 in Special Leave to Appeal (c) No.20522/2016.,,

The respondents, on their turn, have opposed the relief sought. It is urged that it is the sole discretion of the employer to engage or not to engage for",,

reasons that an incumbent will not be suitable for the service for which he is considered. It is contended that in the case at hand the Screening,,

Committee after giving personal hearing to the petitioner and taking into consideration the charges levelled against him, gave the opinion that he will",,

not be a suitable person for service in a disciplined force. It is urged that the discretion having been judiciously exercised after affording an opportunity,,

of hearing, the same cannot be faulted with.",,

Considered the rival submissions.,,

The issue as present one came up for consideration before Full Bench of our High Court in Ashutosh Pawar Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh &,,

Another (Writ Petition No.5865/2016 Order dated 12.01.2018),",,

wherein following questions were dwelt upon:-,,

“1. Whether in all cases, where an FIR lodged against a person for minor offences has been quashed on the basis of a compromise arrived at",,

between the parties or a person has been acquitted on account of a compromise between the parties, the character of the person applying for",,

appointment thereafter, has to be treated as Good and such a person cannot be held ineligible for appointment under the Rules of 1994 ?",,

Whether the High Court in exerciseof its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can step into the shoes of the Appointing Authority",,

and determine as to whether the person concerned is fit for appointment or whether the High Court on finding that the Authority concerned has,,

wrongly exercised its discretion in holding the candidate to be ineligible should, after quashing the order, remit the matter back to the authority",,

concerned for reconsideration or for fresh consideration as to the eligibility of the person ?,,

Whether the High Court whileallowing such a petition in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can issue a further,,

direction to the authority to appoint the person concerned on the post from the date his batchmates were appointed and to grant him back dated,,

seniority and all other benefits or whether the High Court should simply remit the matter back to the authority for taking a decision in this regard ?,,

Whether the high standards ofadjudging the good character of a candidate for appointment as a Judicial Officer, which has been adopted and",,

followed by the State under the Rules of 1994 till the decision in the case of Arvind Gurjar (supra) were and are right and proper or whether in view,,

of the decision in the case of Arvind Gurjar (supra), the same should be considered to be relaxed to the extent that in all cases the character of a",,

person should be treated to be good where he has been acquitted for minor offences on the basis of a compromise?,,

Whether the decision in the case ofArvind Gurjar (supra) lays down the correct law ?,,

Any other question that may arisefor adjudication or decision in the dispute involved in the present petition and which the Larger Bench thinks,,

appropriate to decide ?â€​,,

Dwelling on Questions No.1, 4 and 5, it is held:",,

“32. Therefore, in respect of the Questions No.1, 4 and 5 we hold that 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. In this view of the matter, we find that the judgment in Arvind Gurjar's case (supra)",,

holding that it cannot be held that candidate does not have a good character, is not the correct enunciation of law. Consequently, the judgment in",,

Arvind Gurjar's case (supra) is overruled.,,

In regard to questions No.2 and 3, it is held:-",,

“40. In view of the law laid down in above said judgments, there is no doubt that in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the",,

Constitution of India, this Court only examines the decision-making process and does not substitute itself as a Court of appeal over the reasons",,

recorded by the State Government. We find that the decision of the State Government holding that the petitioner is not suitable, is just, fair and",,

reasonable keeping in view the nature of the post and the duties to be discharged.,,

Even if the High Court finds that the decision of the State Government is suffering from some illegality, the jurisdiction of the High Court in a writ",,

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to remit the matter to the Authority for reconsideration rather than to substitute the decision of,,

the competent Authority with that of its own. The Supreme Court in a judgment reported as (1994) 4 SCC 448 ( State of Haryana vs. Naresh Kumar,,

Bali) was examining a question: as to whether there could be a direction to appoint a candidate, who sought appointment on compassionate ground.",,

The Supreme Court held as under:-,,

With regard to appointment on compassionate ground we have set out the law in Life Insurance Corpn. of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar",,

(1994) 2 SCC 718. The same principle will clearly apply here. What the High Court failed to note is the post of an Inspector is a promotional post. The,,

issuing a direction to appoint the respondent within three months when direct recruitment is not available, is unsupportable. The High Court could have",,

merely directed consideration of the claim of the respondent in accordance with the rules. It cannot direct appointment. Such a direction does not fall,,

within the scope of mandamus. Judicial review, it has been repeatedly emphasised, is directed against the decisionmaking process and not against the",,

decision itself; and it is no part of the court's duty to exercise the power of the authorities itself. There is widespread misconception on the scope of,,

interference in judicial review. The exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction constitutionally conferred on the Apex Court under Article 142(1) of the,,

Constitution can be of no guidance on the scope of Article 226.â€​,,

The impugned order when is tested on the anvil of the law laid down by the Full Bench, no interference is warranted.",,