Avinesh Trivedi vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Sujoy Paul, J.—Heard. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was selected on the post of Constable (GD) pursuant to Police Constable Recruitment Test, 2012. The petitioner was selected in the test and was even allotted unit for the purpose of posting. For this, reliance is placed on Annexures P/3 and P/4. The contention of Shri D.P. Singh is that petitioner was orally informed that his candidature is rejected. It is contended that in the verification form (Annexure P/5) the petitioner had disclosed about the criminal antecedents. The petitioner has given details about those criminal cases in para 12 of the said verification form.

Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents submit that this matter is covered by the recent order of this Court passed in WP No. 3875/2013 (Dilip Kumar Samadhiya Vs. State of M.P. & Others).

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In the present case there is no written rejection of candidature of the petitioner. The contention of Shri D.P. Singh is that the petitioner''s candidature is orally rejected on the basis of various criminal cases which were lodged against him. This Court in Dilip Kumar Samadhiya (supra) has followed the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another Vs. Mehar Singh, . The operative portion of said judgment reads as under:-

In the considered opinion of this Court, a minute reading of this clause shows that the candidates who are acquitted on merits shall be eligible for Government employment. This clause, in my opinion, does not deal with the cases of acquittal on benefit of doubt or on compromise etc. In the said clause the department has not chosen to use the word "only or alone". Putting it differently, it cannot be said that on a plain reading of clause 6 (VIII), aforesaid, that only such persons who are acquitted on merits are eligible for Government employment. Learned Govt. Advocate has not shown any other provision in Annexure R/2 which makes the candidate ineligible or not suitable if he is acquitted on benefit of doubt or on the basis of compromise. The Apex Court addressed this aspect in Mehar Singh in para 23 of the judgment. The Apex Court opined about the cases where the candidate is acquitted or discharged on technical grounds, it is held that authorities would be entitled to keep persons involved in grave cases of moral turpitude out of the police force even if they are acquitted or discharged if it feels that the acquittal or discharge is on technical ground or not honourable. It is further held that Screening Committee will be within its right to cancel the candidature of a candidate if it finds that the acquittal is based on some serious flaw in the conduct of the prosecution case or is the result of material witnesses turning hostile. Experienced officer of the Screening Committee must judge whether acquittal or discharge of candidate is likely to revert to similar activities in future with more strength and vigour, if appointed, to the police force. The Screening committee needs to consider the nature and extent of such person''s involvement in the crime and his propensity of becoming a cause for worsening the law and other situation rather than maintaining it. The policy of police was affirmed with the finding that the said policy is introduced to ensure that the persons with impeccable character enter the police force.

In Mehar Singh (supra) the Apex Court opined that even if candidates have disclosed about their criminal antecedents, it will not improve their case. The police force being a disciplinary force needs to shoulder the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the society. In para 33 to 35 the Apex Court opined as under:

So far as respondent Mehar Singh is concerned, his case appears to have been compromised. It was urged that acquittal recorded pursuant to a compromise should not be treated as a disqualification because that will frustrate the purpose of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. We see no merit in this submission. Compromises or settlements have to be encouraged to bring about peaceful and amiable atmosphere in the society by according a quietus to disputes. They have to be encouraged also to reduce arrears of cases and save the litigants from the agony of pending litigation. But these considerations cannot be brought in here. In order to maintain integrity and high standard of police force, the Screening Committee may decline to take cognizance of a compromise, if it appears to it to be dubious. The Screening Committee cannot be faulted for that.

The respondents are trying to draw mileage from the fact that in their application and/or attestation form they have disclosed their involvement in a criminal case. We do not see how this fact improves their case. Disclosure of these facts in the application/attestation form is an essential requirement. An aspirant is expected to state these facts honestly. Honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of the police force. The respondents should not, therefore, expect to score any brownie points because of this disclosure. Besides, this has no relevance to the point in issue. It bears repetition to state that while deciding whether a person against whom a criminal case was registered and who was later acquitted or discharged should be appointed to a post in the police force, what is relevant is the nature of the offence, the extent of his involvement, whether the acquittal was a clean acquittal or an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt because the witnesses turned hostile or because of some serious flaw in the prosecution, and the propensity of such person to indulge in similar activities in future. This decision, in our opinion, can only be taken by the Screening Committee created for that purpose by the Delhi Police. If the Screening Committee''s decision is not mala fide or actuated by extraneous considerations, then, it cannot be questioned.

The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the 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 or 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 to the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of taking decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In recent times, the image of the police force is tarnished. Instances of police personnel behaving in a wayward manner by misusing power are in public domain and are a matter of concern. The reputation of the police force has taken a beating. In such a situation, we would not like to dilute the importance and efficacy of a mechanism like the Screening Committee created by the Delhi Police to ensure that persons who are likely to erode its credibility do not enter the police force. At the same time, the Screening Committee must be alive to the importance of trust reposed in it and must treat all candidates with even hand.

On conjoint reading of aforesaid paragraphs and findings of Supreme Court in Mehar Singh makes it clear that police authorities are well within their rights to decide the candidature of a person who is acquitted on benefit of doubt or on the basis of compromise. The only question is whether such candidature can be rejected on the threshold by holding that they were involved in criminal cases and their acquittal is on benefit of doubt or on basis of compromise.

The Delhi Police appointed a screening committee of expert officers to examine various aspects mentioned in the judgment of Mehar Singh. No such mechanism is shown to this Court by the respondents. The important question is whether every exoneration of candidate on benefit of doubt or on basis of compromise will make him ineligible for appointment in police force? Before dealing with this aspect, in my opinion, it is a matter of common knowledge that in various cases, because of personal enmity and rivalry etc. false reports are lodged even against those persons who are not at all involved in the incident. Cases are not unknown where quarrel takes place between two persons and complainant registers report against the all family members and relatives of the other person. In such cases, many a times good sense prevails on the parties subsequently and they enter into a compromise. If as a thumb rule it is decided that all cases where acquittal of candidate is on Rajinama makes them disentitled for recruitment in police/Government job, it will be an extreme decision which will result into serious injustice to genuine and otherwise innocent candidates.

The Apex Court in Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, opined that the ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. This is an Herculean task. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. The allegations of harassment of husband''s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have different complexion. The Apex Court emphasized the need of scrutiny with great care and circumspection. Needless to mention that false complaint takes place in variety of cases/offences including matrimonial matters. Thus in case of exoneration on basis of compromise and benefit of doubt it needs to be meticulously examined what are the basis for exoneration. This aspect is already dealt with by Supreme Court in aforesaid reproduced paragraphs.

As analyzed above, in my opinion, the respondents are bound to apply mind about the nature of the case and reason for exoneration etc. Respondents may appoint a Screening Committee of expert officers for this purpose. There has to be application of mind to see whether benefit of doubt is given because the witnesses have turned hostile or because there is some serious flaw in the prosecution. It also needs to be seen whether there is any possibility of involvement of the candidate in similar nature of crime in future. The Apex Court in para 34 and 35, reproduced above, opined that the decision of Screening Committee can be put to judicial scrutiny only if it is malafide or actuated by extraneous considerations. The Apex Court also dealt with the case of exoneration on compromise. It is opined that Screening Committee needs to examine such cases and may reject the candidature if it is found that the compromise is dubious.

In the considered opinion of this Court, in the present case, there is no material to show whether respondents have meticulously examined individual cases of the petitioners on the basis of relevant consideration mentioned above. In the light of aforesaid, in my opinion, this aspect needs to be considered in the light of judgment of Mehar Singh (supra). In the light of recent judgment of Supreme Court in Mehar Singh which deals with recruitment in disciplined police force, cases cited by petitioners are of no assistance to them. Petitioners have not chosen to challenge validity of Annexure R/2, wherein the respondents have declared certain offences as "moral turpitude". In absence of challenge to Annexure R/2, I am not inclined to examine its validity or correctness.

Thus, without setting aside the impugned orders herein, I deem it proper to direct the respondents to consider the aforesaid aspect and decide the suitability of the petitioners for appointment. It will be open for the respondents to constitute a Screening Committee for this purpose. It is made clear that it will be open for the Screening Committee/department to accept or reject the candidature of the petitioners after due consideration of relevant aspects discussed in this judgment. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioners on merits. This needs to be examined by the respondents. This entire exercise must be completed within 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Outcome shall be communicated to the petitioners.

With the aforesaid, petitions are disposed of. No Costs.

A bare perusal of the judgment in Dilip Kumar Samadhiya (supra) makes it clear that respondents are required to meticulously examine about the nature of acquittal of the petitioner. This case needs to be disposed of in the light of judgment delivered in Dilip Kumar Samadhiya (supra).

Resultantly, this petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to examine the candidature and suitability of the petitioner in the light of principle laid down in Dilip Kumar Samadhiya (supra). Entire exercise be completed within 60 days from the date production of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits and entitlement of the petitioner.