Hamir Singh Gurjar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

This appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is directed against the

order dated 6.2.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.22636/2017.

Petitioner, having participated in the process of recruitment of Constable, cleared its all stages. The candidature of the petitioner/appellant was,

however, cancelled on the finding, based on the disclosure in the verification form, as to the appellant being proceeded in a Criminal Cases vide

Crime No.662/2003 registered at Police Station Morar, under sections 294, 323, 336 of IPC, Crime No.897/2007 registered at Police Station

Morar, under sections 323, 504, 506-B of IPC, Crime No.392/11 registered at Police Station Thatipur under sections 294, 323 and 506 of IPC and

Crime no.524/2003 registered at Police Station Padav under section 382 of IPC. Though the said cases resulted in acquittal on account of the

charges having not been found proved beyond reasonable doubt. As there was no communication as regard to selection he filed the Writ Petition

No.5922/2012 wherein vide order dated 27.1.2017  the respondents were directed to consider the case on the basis of decision in Avtar

Singh Vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471.  On reconsideration the petitioner was not found suitable by the

Scrutiny Committee in its meeting convened on 30.3.2017. The Committee observed:

vr% vH;FkhZ ds izdj.k esa mijksDr leh{kk mijkUr lfefr }kjk iqfyl lsok ds fy, v;ksX; ik;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSAâ€​

The petitioner was communicated  the decision on  24.4.2017 and 9.5.2017. On a challenge in W.P.No.22636/2017, the Writ Court

declined to cause indulgence observing that  in the case of Avtar Singh (supra)  the Supreme Court  has assigned various

exigencies and given sufficient discretion to the authorities to exercise their powers while duly vetting the case.

Exception is taken to the verdict by the petitioner/appellant. It is urged that with the acquittal of petitioner, all the criminal charges levelled against him

got washed of. It is urged that there is no previous history of petitioner being involved in any crime as would have led the employer draw a conclusive

finding as to his antecedent being not germane to government job. It is urged that in this fact situation the Writ Court has erred in dismissing the

petition preferred by the petitioner while affirming the reasoning given by the authority concerned.

Learned Government Advocate, on his turn, has supported the order passed by the Writ Court by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of “Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others [(2016) 8 SCC 471]†and in Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration

and others Vs. Pradeep Kumar and another passed in Civil Appeal No.67/2018 (SC) vide Judgment dated 08th January, 2018 and of our High Court in

Ashutosh Pawar Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another (Writ Petition No.5865/2016 Order dated 12.01.2018). It is urged that the petitioner

though acquitted of the charges it was still within the competence of the appointing authority to have taken into consideration the antecedents of the

petitioner and it was because of his involvement in the crime of moral turpitude for which he was charged, the decision was taken to cancel the

candidature and thus, it is urged that learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition.

Considered the rival submissions

In Avtar Singh (supra), it is held:

“38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize

our conclusion thus:

38.1 Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after

entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

38.2 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.

38.3 The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

38.4 In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where 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 recourses appropriate to the case

may be adopted :

38.4.1 In a 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 an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false

information by condoning the lapse.

38.4.2 Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the

employee.

38.4.3 If acquittal had already 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 given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and

may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.

38.5 In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider

antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

38.6 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.

38.7 In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume 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.

38.8 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.

38.9 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.

38.10 For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be 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.

38.11 Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.â€​

It is held by the Hon. Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar and another (supra):

“13. It is thus well settled that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle him for 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 this Court in Mehar

Singh and Parvez Khan cases, it is clear that a candidate to be recruited to the police service must be of impeccable character and integrity. A person

having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was honourably

acquitted/completely exonerated. The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is shown to be mala fide. The Screening

Committee also must be alive to the importance of the trust repose in it and must examine the candidate with utmost character.â€​

In Ashutosh Pawar (supra), the law laid down is:-

“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 of 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. Jurisdiction of the High Court in a writ petition under Art.226 of the

Constitution of India is to examine the decision-making process than to act as Court of appeal to substitute its own decision. In appropriate case, if the

Court finds 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 with that of its own.

The expectations from a Judicial Officer are of much higher standard. There cannot be any compromise in respect of rectitude, honesty and integrity

of a candidate who seeks appointment as Civil Judge. The personal conduct of a candidate to be appointed as Judicial Officer has to be free from any

taint. The standard of conduct in the case of Judicial Officer is higher than that expected of an ordinary citizen and also higher than that expected of a

professional in law as well. The same must be in tune with the highest standard of propriety and probity.â€​

In the case at hand, the Committee having scrutinized the case of the petitioner did not find him suitable for employment in theÂ

disciplined force. Since the discretion has been exercised judiciously, we do not perceive any ground for causing indulgence.

Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed.