Darshan Singh Sikarwar vs State Of M.P. & Others

This intra Court appeal filed u/S.2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assails the final order dated 09/09/2020 passed by Writ Court in WP No.29303/2018 while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution dismissing the petition in question by which challenge was made to Annexure P/1 dated 06/12/2018 by which candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Constable (Driver) in police force was rejected on the ground of appellant having been found to be involved in offences involving moral turpitude which though culminated into acquittal but the same was treated neither to be clean nor honourable.

Learned counsel for rival parties are heard on the question of admission as well as final disposal.

The undisputed facts of the case are that in the selection held in 2013 for the post of Constable (Driver) in police force, the petitioner's candidature was scrutinized and the petitioner was found suitable and thus was selected for being appointed as Constable (Driver). On verification of his antecedents, it was found that on the basis of disclosure made by the petitioner that there were four offences registered against him bearing Crime No.231/2009 alleging offence punishable u/S.379 of IPC in which he was acquitted by judgment dated 25/08/2012, Crime No.26/13 alleging offence punishable u/Ss. 294, 323, 451, 506, 34 of IPC in which he was acquitted by judgment dated 21/05/2013, Crime No.192/2013 alleging offence punishable u/Ss.294, 323, 324, 341, 506-B of IPC in which the petitioner was though named in the FIR but was not arrayed as an accused in the chargesheet & Crime No.713/2016 alleging offence punishable u/S.279, 429 of IPC in which the petitioner was acquitted by judgment dated 23/06/2017.

3.1 Appointing authority in view of aforesaid criminal antecedents was of the view that petitioner is not fit to be inducted into the uniform service of police.

The only question that falls for consideration is as to whether the discretion exercised by the appointing authority based on the aforesaid material of four offences in which the petitioner has been acquitted is unlawful or not?

Learned counsel for petitioner has argued with great vehemence that judgment of acquittal rendered in all the aforesaid four offences were though categorized as based on benefit of doubt but in actuality are judgments which honourably acquitted the petitioner of all the charges. It is submitted that even the complainant in all these offences did not support the prosecution story much less the other prosecution witnesses and therefore, it is urged that prosecution desperately failed to prove it's case which according to petitioner can lead to only one conclusion that the offence was not proved resulting in clean and honourable acquittal.

This Court would have gone into the probative value of evidence in all the trials which were conducted in respect of aforesaid four offences but the fact of offence bearing Crime No.713/2016 leading to an acquittal by judgment 23/06/2018 which is not a clean and honourable acquittal but an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt, this Court declines to undertake the said exercise.

A bare perusal of the statement of the complainant PW/1-Mohan Bhargava reveals that he has supported the prosecution story to some extent but yet was declared hostile by the prosecution. The other witness did not support the story of prosecution and the trial ended in acquittal by extending benefit of doubt to the petitioner. This Judgment dated 21/05/2013 (P/11) in case No.4400/2013 pronounced by JMFC, Gwalior in the considered opinion of this Court can not be categorized as a clean and honourable acquittal.

Thus, the appointing authority may have been wrong in treating the other judgments of acquittal to be not honourable/clean but so far as judgment dated 21/05/2013 in Case No.4400/2013 is concerned, the same is a judgment based on benefit of doubt and therefore, can not be categorized as clean and honourable acquittal and thus, the appointing authority while exercising the discretion available against the petitioner had material in shape of judgment dated 25/01/2013 to support this view and thus the exercise of this discretion can not be termed as unlawful or perverse. Once it is held that there was some relevant material in shape of judgment based on benefit of doubt before the competent authority, this Court in the limited power of judicial review, refrains from interfering .

Consequently, this Court does not find any illegality, impropriety and rampant irregularity in passing the impugned order dated 09/09/2020 in WP No.29303/2018.

Consequently, the present writ appeal stands dismissed, sans cost.