Anoop Singh Thakur vs State Of M.P. And Others

(1) This intra-court appeal preferred u/S 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, assails the final order dated 15.04.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in WP.4689/2017 exercising writ jurisdiction u/Art.226 of Constitution dismissing the petition in question by which candidature of petitioner for appointment to the post of Constable in Police Force, Government of Madhya Pradesh was rejected finding the petitioner to be involved in Crime No.72/2012 alleging offences punishable u/Ss.147, 148, 149, 307, 452 of IPC which though culminated in acquittal by judgment dated 10.02.2017 passed in ST No.153/2013 by Additional Sessions Judge, Datia (M.P.) but the same was not an honourable/clean acquittal.

(2) Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

(3) The facts involved which are not in dispute are that the petitioner had been selected for the post of Constable but on scrutiny of his antecedents it was found that he had been involved in an offence bearing Crime No.72/2012 alleging offences punishable u/Ss.147, 148, 149, 307, 452 of IPC which though ended in acquittal by judgment dated 10.02.2017 passed in ST No.153/2013 by Additional Sessions Judge, Datia (M.P.) but the employer found the acquittal neither clean nor honourable and the offence of attempt to murder involving moral turpitude and therefore since the disciplined police force ought not to induct persons of doubtful character, the candidature of petitioner suffered rejection.

(4) The only question which falls for consideration and which has been decided against the petitioner by learned Single Judge is as to whether the judgment of acquittal is honourable and clean and whether the offence punishable u/S.307 IPC in which the petitioner had been acquitted involves moral turpitude or not.

(5) If the answer to the aforesaid first question is in the affirmative then need to answer the second question gets obviated. Thus, this Court takes up the first question i.e. whether the judgment of acquittal is based on benefit of doubt or is clean/honourable for consideration.

(5.1) A bare perusal of judgment dated 10.02.2017 in ST No.153/2013 in which the petitioner/appellant herein was one of the eight accused reveals that it is founded upon an incident dated 18.05.2012 which took place at 05:30 pm at village Parasari, District Datia (M.P.). The incident arose out of argument/altercation between complainant Kartar Singh (PW-1) who had lent his four wheeler to one of the accused, namely, Ramraja Kamariya and there was difference of opinion in regard to rent. At that point of time, all the seven accused including the petitioner/appellant allegedly armed with weapons like lathi, axe, pharsa, trespassed into the house of complainant where accused Ramkundal caused Pharsa blow to the complainant who sustained head injury. The co-accused Ramraja also inflicted axe blow on the head of the complainant whereafter it was alleged that all the remaining accused including the appellant/petitioner assaulted the complainant with their respective weapons [petitioner/appellant was alleged to be armed with lathi which was recovered from him]. When the complainant tried to save himself with the help of his 12 bore gun, the accused are alleged to have broken his gun.

(6) The MLC was prepared on medical examination of the complainant. Whereafter the complainant was subjected to x-ray revealing fracture of left tibia and right ulna bone.

(6.1) In the trial, the complainant and as well as all eyewitnesses did not support prosecution story by not only denying the happening of the incident but also denying making of any statement to the police u/S.161 Cr.P.C. That seizure witness and witness qua arrest i.e. Smt. Sandhya Yadav (PW-6) and Hardayal (PW-7) also denied any seizure or arrest to have been made in their presence. However, Dr. Aashish Mishra (PW-14) and Shailendra Bhargava, Police Inspector, (PW-15) both supported the MLC and process of investigation respectively.

(7) Looking to the number of injuries sustained by the complainant, the prosecution story though not having been supported by eyewitnesses and complainant but the important aspect of prosecution story i.e. the injuries and the process of investigation having been supported by the respective witnesses this Court is of the considered view that the acquittal of the petitioner/appellant cannot be termed to be clean and honourable to compel this Court to direct the employer to reconsider the case of the petitioner.

(8) It is the settled principle of service jurisprudence that the employer has wide discretion to consider lot many factors of extenuating or incriminating nature when called upon to answer the question as regards suitability of a particular candidate for public employment. In the case at hand, especially the nature of acquittal does not compel this Court to come to a conclusion that discretion exercised by the employer was not in accordance with law.

(9) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments of this Court rendered by Single Bench and as well as Division Bench viz. "Arvind Yadav Vs. The State of M.P. and Ors [WP.2688/2019 order dated 01.10.2019]", "Ramvaran Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and others [WA.1257/2018 order dated 29.10.2018]" & "Mukesh Singh Tomar Vs. State of M.P. & Ors [WA.1248/2018 order dated 05.03.2019]" but in view of the findings rendered above, the said decisions are of no avail to the petitioner. The decisions cited by learned counsel for the respondents are not being considered in view of nature of this order.

(10) Accordingly, since order passed by learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with, present appeal stands dismissed, sans cost.